Download Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they

Community sentences since 2000:
How they work – and why they
have not cut prisoner numbers
Catherine Heard
About the Author
Catherine Heard is Research and Policy Associate at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the European Commission for funding the research work which led to this report,
under the European Alternatives to Custody project.
Thanks to Matt Ford for his tireless efforts in sourcing the statistical and financial data contained in the
tables at the end of this report.
Registered charity No. 251588
A company limited by guarantee registered in England No. 496821
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
2 Langley Lane
Vauxhall
London SW8 1GB
[email protected]
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk
© Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
September 2015
ISBN: 978-1-906003-XX-X
With financial support from the
Criminal Justice Programme of
the European Union
Introduction
02
Prison and the alternatives: an overview
What do the numbers tell us?
Government policy on prisoner numbers since 2000
England and Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
03
03
03
04
05
05
Rethinking our use of prison
06
Better use of alternatives: some guiding principles
07
Conclusion
08
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
What are the alternatives to imprisonment?
Probation systems in the UK
Data tables
09
33
49
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Introduction
Over the past decade, the Centre for Crime and Justice
Studies has been charting developments in community
sanctions and calling for a more ambitious approach to
criminal justice policy, informed by principles of social
justice.1 Our research has shown that the UK’s increased
use of community sentences has not led to any overall
reduction in the number of people in prison. At best, it
may have controlled the growth of short-term prison
sentences. At worst, it has simply expanded the net of
criminalisation and punishment, exacerbating rather than
resolving social harms.
This report offers a unique review of the range of
alternatives to custody in the UK, from bail, through
community sanctions and probation, to early release from
prison. It gives an overview of how governments have
attempted to control the staggering rise in prisoner
numbers since 2000 by the use of so-called ‘alternatives’ –
and largely failed to do so. The key measures are explained
in Appendix 1, with supporting statistical and financial data
for the separate jurisdictions of England and Wales,
Northern Ireland and Scotland in Appendix 3. Probation
practices under the three systems are described in
Appendix 2.
The information in Appendices 1 – 3 is generally
descriptive rather than analytical. It was gathered as part
of an ongoing comparative project funded by the European
Commission: Alternatives to Custody in Europe, or ‘ACE’.2
The ACE project compares current law and practice in
alternatives to custody across eight EU states: Italy,
France, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the
UK.3 These countries have widely divergent systems and
practices, notably in pre-trial detention, community
sentences and probation. Most have chronically
overcrowded prisons, as was shown in a separate report
published by the same team of researchers in 2014.4 By
building up a comparative picture in a similar way, the ACE
project aims to identify better approaches to ending the
wasteful, harmful over-use of prison currently blighting so
many European countries. It seeks to promote the fairer,
more effective use of alternatives. To that end, we have
developed a set of core principles on the use of
alternatives to custody, which should inform and underpin
the policy and approach of governments and criminal
justice agencies. These are set out in the main body of this
report (see page 7)
In comparison to prison, people’s understanding of the
purposes of sentencing, of community measures and the
role of probation tends to be patchy: reliable information
is hard to come by. We therefore hope that this report with
its wealth of data will be a useful resource.
Catherine Heard
Research and Policy Associate
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk
September 2015
2 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Prison and the alternatives:
an overview
Government policy on
prisoner numbers since 2000
We begin with a short summary of the key data on
prisoner numbers and community sanctions, before
providing an overview of how government policy in
England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has
addressed (or failed to address) the UK’s chronically high
prisoner numbers.
This is followed by some simple proposals for a more
ambitious policy to cut the UK’s use of prison, and a set of
core principles for the better, fairer use of alternatives.
The number of people in prison following conviction for a
criminal offence in England and Wales, Northern Ireland
and Scotland has increased sharply. Yet there has been no
discernible government policy or strategy to reduce prison
numbers and the use of custody overall, as distinct from
simply controlling further growth.
This is despite government data showing that
reconviction rates for those leaving custody are higher
than those dealt with by alternatives such as fines or
supervision. It is despite regular reports that UK prisons
are over-crowded and conditions poor, with incidents of
mental illness, self-harm and suicide at alarmingly high
levels and staff struggling to maintain safety.
In policy terms, government emphasis in all three of the
UK’s jurisdictions has been focused on ‘reducing
reoffending’ (including in particular by looking for
alternatives to short-term prison sentences), rather than
cutting prisoner numbers overall. Many criticise this
approach, not least for its failure to take account of the
wider social and individual factors needing to be included
in any analysis of the causes of law-breaking.5
What do the numbers tell us?
Overall, the quantitative data reveal a growth in the use of
custody and in the length of sentences served. At the same
time, there has been a rise in the use of community
sentences. These trends largely arise from changes to
statutory sentencing provisions, which have become more
punitive.
Reforms to community sentencing, though frequent in
this period, have failed to reduce prisoner numbers
overall. Indeed, the expansion in the use of community
sanctions since 2000 was never likely to address the UK’s
extremely high prisoner numbers.
People serving community sentences and prison sentences – the numbers
160.000
Serving a community sentence
140,000
Serving a prison sentence
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1. Figures for England and Wales only (2002 – 2014). While the use of community sentences has also grown in Scotland and Northern
Ireland (as have prisoner numbers) the available data is not directly comparable to that for England and Wales. For full data, along with
source references, see Appendix 3.
2. ‘Serving a prison sentence’ refers to the final-sentenced population as at 30 June each year and excludes remand and
non-criminal prisoners.
3. ‘Serving a community sentence’ refers to those under suspended or deferred custodial sentences, community orders or
youth rehabilitation orders, as at December each year.
4. Each person ‘serving a community sentence’ is counted only once, even if they are subject to several types of sentence at the year end.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 3
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
There has also been a policy shift towards the greater
use of community sanctions. These have frequently been
re-packaged and presented as ‘tougher’ and making the
person ‘pay back’, by doing unpaid work, or forgoing
freedom of movement, sometimes combined with
probation. In terms of the development of alternatives to
custody over this period, there are four notable trends, all
of which have been driven by government policy on
criminal justice and on public sector delivery.
1. Requirements imposed with community measures have
become more onerous (for example, the maximum
length of time a curfew can be imposed has been
extended from 12 to 16 hours a day).
2. The punishment element is more visible. (For example,
people on unpaid work requirements must wear bright
orange jackets saying ‘Community Payback’; and there
is a statutory requirement for every Community Order
to contain at least one punitive element.) This has led
some to comment that community sentences have
become more ‘prison-like’, moving away from the
rehabilitative model.
3. There is a growing role for the private sector, with
financial incentives to cut reconviction rates under a
‘payment by results’ system (in England and Wales).
4. There is greater use of electronic monitoring, both as a
requirement to a Community Order (where there is a
curfew requirement) and as a post-prison control
(through home detention curfew, widely used in
England and Wales and Scotland). Again, private
companies are the main providers.
There is little evidence that any of these developments
will reduce prisoner numbers overall, or help to divert
people from prison, or avoid the associated costs and
other harms of incarceration. In the case of some
measures, such as ‘payment by results’ for probation
services, it is too early to tell.
Below, we provide an overview of the factors behind the
UK’s extremely high prisoner numbers and what, if
anything, has been done at government level to try to
address the problem.
England and Wales
Prison populations rose steadily under the two (Labour)
governments in power for the first two thirds of the period
2000 - 2015. They continued to rise under the
(Conservative-Liberal Democrat) coalition government for
the five years to May 2015. Throughout this period there
was no clear government strategy or policy to reduce
overall numbers in custody.
In July 2009 the
Ministry of Justice
The growth
published an analysis of
in England and Wales’
factors behind the 66%
total prisoner population
growth in the England and
between 1995 and 2009
Wales prison population
66%
4 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
from 1995 to 2009.6 It identified two main drivers behind
the increase: more people sentenced to immediate
custody (as a result of tougher sentencing laws) and more
people recalled to prison for breaking release conditions.
An additional but less significant factor identified was the
rise in numbers of people imprisoned for breaching noncustodial sentences. The analysis found that since 2000
the average time spent in prison had increased by 14%.
There had also been a rapid increase in the number of
breach cases resulting in prison, reflecting legislation
introduced in 2003 to toughen enforcement of community
sanctions and licences.
In November 2014 the
Ministry of Justice
The increase
accompanied a release of
in average time spent in
sentencing statistics with a
prison since 2000, in
statement welcoming the
England and Wales.
steady increase in the
average prison sentence
handed down in the period since 2010 when the coalition
government took power. The statement pointed to the
government’s record in taking ‘major steps to toughen
sentencing’ and linked this to continued falls in crime
rates. On sentencing, for example, the government had
introduced legislation extending mandatory life terms for
certain serious offences and imposing longer prison
sentences for the most serious driving offences.
These most recent examples of government policy
illustrate the degree to which any policy aiming to reduce
prisoner numbers is avoided. Recent reforms to the
systems of community sanctions and post-prison
probation are widely seen as ideologically driven attempts
to open up criminal justice processes and interventions to
the private sector. It remains to be seen what impact they
will have on prisoner numbers or reconviction rates.
Although there have been several parliamentary and
NGO reports pointing to the need to cut overall prisoner
numbers, none has had any detectable effect on
government policy. For example, over recent years the
House of Commons Justice Select Committee has
emphasised the dangers of allowing the prison population
to escalate and consume resources that could be better
spent elsewhere, for example, by dealing with drug and
alcohol addiction and expanding early intervention and
diversion programmes. In a report published in March
2015, the Committee identified a ‘need to re-evaluate how
custody, and alternatives to it, are used in a cost-effective
way which best promotes the safety of the public and
reduces future crime’.7 The Chair of the Committee said
the country needed to ‘get away from arguments about
which party is hard or soft on crime’ and instead foster a
debate on effective practices, informed by evidence.
These observations echo those contained in a British
Academy report published in July 20148 which called for a
deeper re-examination of penal policy, located outside of
politics. The report noted that a key contributing factor to
prison growth was the increased use of prison for breach
of release conditions and community sentences.
14%
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
As we explain in more detail in Appendix 2, the
probation system in England and Wales was radically
reshaped in 2014 – 2015, under the ‘Transforming
Rehabilitation’ programme. This has opened up the bulk
of probation work to the private sector and introduced a
controversial ‘payment by results’ system based on future
reconviction rates. It has greatly expanded mandatory
post-release supervision, placing an added burden on an
already stretched service, with no additional funding to pay
for it.
the country has yet taken a truly different path towards
reducing the use of custody. Recent trends on the use of
custodial sentences and average sentence lengths are not
reassuring. In 2012 – 2013, 15% of people found guilty of
an offence were given a custodial sentence, the highest
proportion in the previous ten years.13 The average length
of a custodial sentence was 283 days, 51 days longer than
in 2006 – 2007. The number of those recalled to prison
for breach of licence conditions increased by 1,000% in
just a decade.
Scotland
Northern Ireland
In July 2008, the Scottish Prisons Commission published
a report 9 advocating limiting the use of custody to cases
where the moral seriousness of the offence, coupled with
public safety grounds, warranted nothing less. It
recommended a significant reduction in the prison
population by avoiding the unnecessary use of short
sentences and making more use of ‘community payback’
sanctions in their place. Emphasis was placed on the
reparative aim of justice, making good to the victim or the
community, for example, by unpaid work, paying a fine or
compensation, and engaging in rehabilitation.
Rehabilitative effort was recast as something done by the
individual, rather than a change coerced by the state; this
made it a form of reparation – paying back for offending
by turning one’s life around.
The report led to a
reform programme by the
Scotland now has a
Scottish government. In
statutory presumption
the years since devolution,
against short prison
Scotland has built on its
sentences.
community punishment
There has since been a
regime to try to reduce
overcrowding in prisons.
big fall in numbers
There is a now a statutory
sentenced to less than
presumption against short
three months.
prison sentences.10 Anyone
who would previously have
received a short prison sentence is now more likely to get
a community sentence. Data published in 2014 suggest
this has reduced the number of short sentences passed.
The proportion of sentences of three months or less has
fallen from 53% of custodial sentences in 2006–07 to
29% in 2012–13.11
In its latest justice strategy programme,12 a priority of
reducing reoffending (as distinct from cutting prisoner
numbers) is highlighted. A central part of this involves
community sentencing and we return to this subject in
Appendix 1. The report also referred to wider social
problems – notably poverty – giving rise to crime,
problems whose solutions lay beyond the criminal justice
system (CJS). It emphasised the need for non-CJS
agencies to be mobilised to tackle these problems.
Overall, while the political debate on prison numbers
in recent years in Scotland has appeared more
progressive than that in Westminster, it is unclear whether
An independent review of prisons was launched in 2010
following an unprecedented rise in the prison population.
The resulting report (the ‘Owers report’)14 published in
October 2011 found that
the rise in prisoner
‘Continuing failure to
numbers resulted from a
‘continuing failure to get to get to grips with
longstanding [prison]
grips with longstanding
population drivers, such as
population drivers’
the numbers of remand
‘A culture of denial and
prisoners and fine
compromise’
defaulters, together with a
new driver, the number of
The Owers report
prisoners recalled [under
legislation enacted in
2008]’.15 The Owers report discussed a ‘culture of denial
and compromise’ before devolution of powers which had
led to wasted public money and failures to deliver a safer
society.
To put this right, the report argued, a complete
transformation was required, rather than mere incremental
change. The authors rejected a market-based approach to
prisons in favour of a political approach to resolving
dysfunction in the prison service. A Prison Reform
Oversight Group with official, professional and civil society
input was set up in December 2011 to work towards
reform. Following this, the Department of Justice launched
a consultation on community sentences to encourage their
greater use as an alternative to short sentences, resulting
in draft legislation.16 The draft bill contains provisions for
low level offences to be dealt with by fines rather than
court prosecution.
The initiatives developed following this review aimed to
move Northern Ireland’s prison system away from its
historic role (criticised as simply ‘warehousing’ many
political prisoners), towards a more conventional
correctional model. As a result of the various reviews and
initiatives, an effort was made to combine prison reform,
community justice and other areas into one overarching
Strategic Framework for Reducing Reoffending, published in
May 2013.
Disappointingly, plans to follow Scotland in introducing
a statutory presumption against shorter prison sentences
did not result in legislation. The promised reforms of the
prison system have made little progress.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 5
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Rethinking our use of prison
For the UK to have any chance of tackling its excessively
high prisoner numbers, the following goals and principles
would need to inform government policy at every level.
● Ensuring alternative sanctions and measures do not
lead to growth in prisoner numbers.
3. Better use of alternatives
1. Minimal resort to prison
Far too many people are in prison. Yet prison does not
reduce crime, either through deterrence or rehabilitation.
Prison costs more than the alternatives, even ones
involving high levels of supervision. Prisons cause
immense social and economic harm. Rates of reconviction
of people who have been in prison are high. But repeat
convictions are just one example of the harms caused by
prison. There are many others: unemployment, poverty,
mental illness, homelessness, family breakdown and social
exclusion. These harms impact not only ex-prisoners but
also families and wider society.
2. Reduction in prison populations
It is important to develop policies to cut prisoner numbers
overall, including by:
● Substituting short custodial sentences with suspended
or community sentences
● Restricting the use of long prison sentences in view of
the severe harms they cause
● Promoting and extending the use of parole, and
6 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
A commitment to making better use of alternative
sanctions and measures is required. ‘Better use’ is not just
applying probation and other measures instead of prison
when appropriate. It is also avoiding the over-use of
community sanctions. These sanctions are forms of
punishment and control: they must not simply widen the
net of punishment by criminalising people in everincreasing numbers. They must not increase prisoner
numbers ‘by the back door’ – for example, jailing someone
for breaking a curfew or not paying a fine.
The better, more targeted use of alternatives would save
resources and reduce the widespread harms caused by
excessive use of prison. It would enhance community
safety more effectively than prison sentences, at a fraction
of the cost.
4. Addressing the wider social harms
It is also important to recognise that policy-makers
committed to reducing prisoner numbers need to look
beyond criminal justice solutions and confront the socioeconomic factors and political choices that contribute to
high prisoner numbers and to law-breaking.
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Better use of alternatives:
some guiding principles
As part of our work with our European partners on the ACE
project, we have developed the following core principles.
They are informed by the available data on good and bad
practice in the use of alternative measures, and by the
international minimum standards on community sanctions
to which all EU member states have signed up. As the
information in Appendices 1 and 2 shows, the UK’s criminal
justice system is not in full compliance with these principles.
social inclusion, mitigating the harms resulting from time
spent in prison and helping to adjust to life outside.
If conditions and requirements are necessary, they must
be selected in a procedurally fair way. The individual must
be given a fair chance to contest the factual basis on which
they are imposed and to challenge disproportionate
infringements of liberty or private or family life.
4. Effects of breach
1. Pre-trial
In view of the rights to liberty and to be presumed
innocent until guilt is proven, remand in custody pre-trial
should be a last resort, only used in exceptional cases. Pretrial detention and any other restriction pre-trial (such as
electronic monitoring) should only be applied following a
hearing at which the defendant has had a fair opportunity
to object. Any measure applied should be no more than
what is necessary and proportionate to ensure a fair trial.
2. Alternative sanctions
● Be used selectively, in a way that is proportionate to the
offence
● Be of a fixed, proportionate duration
● Be clear in scope and realistic in requirements
● Not stigmatise individuals, but respect their dignity,
privacy, and family life
● Be properly targeted, based on a thorough, objective
assessment of the person’s background, previous
record and support needs
● Take account of age, maturity and any specific needs
that could affect the ability to comply with, or benefit
from, the measure
● Help to restore individuals to their place in society,
enabling them to choose desistance
● Be worthwhile, helping towards personal autonomy and
social integration
● Be properly resourced and organised, and
● Be supported by trained professionals from a wide
range of backgrounds, equipped with sufficient human
and financial resources. Private sector involvement
must be subject to equally high professional standards
and safeguards as public sector provision.
3. After prison
Any requirements imposed as a condition of release from
prison must be proportionate in nature and duration. They
must be targeted and practical, aimed at the person’s
The effects of breach of any alternative sanction must be
proportionate to the offence itself, the nature of the breach
and the person’s circumstances.
There must be no automatic recourse to prison or any
other harsher sanction than that for which the measure
itself was imposed. A reasoned decision must be taken
based on all the available information. The decision on
breach must be free from discrimination based on any
personal characteristic, but must take account of the
person’s circumstances where these could impact on the
ability to comply with requirements.
5. Accountability and transparency
Accountability: Government departments and officials as
well as private sector providers responsible for delivering
probation and other community sanctions should be
publicly accountable for the impacts of their policies on
imprisonment and use of alternatives. Independent and
well-resourced inspection and monitoring systems should
apply to public and to private sector bodies delivering
alternative sanctions, programmes, probation and
monitoring. Inspection reports and evidence should be
published promptly.
Transparent data on sentences, their impact and costs:
The government should publish independently verified
data on the use and impacts of prison and alternatives to
custody (to include pre-trial measures and post-release
requirements). Reconviction rates should not be the sole
basis to judge a measure’s effectiveness. Other key
impacts are whether the person has benefited from
support or supervision by, for example, completing
training programmes and finding employment or housing.
The relative costs of prison and its alternatives should
be monitored. Data should be published on these costs, at
least annually and preferably quarterly. Sentencing and
cost data should be presented in a way that enables the
public to understand the costs and social impacts of
prison, compared with the alternatives.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 7
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Conclusion
The UK’s use of alternatives to custody has expanded
greatly since 2000. However, despite many reforms and
restructurings, community measures have done little if
anything to stem the steady increase in prisoner numbers.
Although couched in the language of rehabilitation, the
government’s recent decision to break up probation in
England and Wales and open its services to a competitive
market and ‘payment by results’ – results focused on the
narrow measure of reconviction rates – is unlikely to help. It
may in fact hamper the rehabilitation prospects of probation
work in prisons and in the community, given the extra
pressures it will place on probation services and the lack of
additional funding to help them meet those pressures.
Increasing the use of community sanctions and making
them ever more punitive cannot avert the risks and harms
of our over-reliance on prison. It simply widens the net of
punishment, consuming resources that would be better
spent on improving access to mental health treatment and
drug and alcohol programmes, and promoting and
resourcing other ways of diverting people away from
criminal justice towards the support they need. Our longstanding over-reliance on criminal justice interventions
leaves little space to develop fairer, more effective
solutions to the problems our society faces.
8 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Notes
1 See, for example: Mills H, Roberts R, Reducing the numbers in
custody: looking beyond criminal justice solutions, (2012), at
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/reducing-numbers-custodylooking-beyond-criminal-justice-solutions; and Mills H, Community
sentences: a solution to penal excess? (2011), at www.crimeand
justice.org.uk/publications/community-sentences-solution-penal
-excess.
2 Information was gathered from published sources including data
collected by criminal justice agencies, principally the Ministry of
Justice, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the
equivalent devolved authorities. In some cases data was obtained by
Freedom of Information Act requests. The information was collected
during the first half of 2015 and was accurate as at 29 May 2015.
3 The ACE project runs to July 2016. Further outputs will include a
European Handbook on Alternatives to Custody, containing examples
of good practice and proposals for reform. For more information on
the project, go to: www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/project/european
-observatory-alternatives-imprisonment.
4 European Prison Observatory, From national practices to European
guidelines, November 2014. Available, along with the eight individual
country reports, at: www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/prison-conditions
-across-europe.
5 For a recent critique of the limitations of the ‘reducing reoffending’
approach to criminal justice policy, see Clarke R, ‘I would give up …
chasing the re-offending rainbow’ (2014), at www.crimeand
justice.org.uk/resources/i-would-give-chasing-reoffending-rainbow.
6 Ministry of Justice Story of the Prison Population: 1995 – 2009,
England and Wales, July 2009.
7 Prisons: planning and policies, HC 309, March 2015.
8 British Academy, A presumption against imprisonment: social order
and social values, July 2014.
9 Scotland’s Choice: Report of the Scottish Prisons Commission,
July 2008.
10 Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.
11 Howard League Scotland, website, Trends, 31 October 2014. Further
analysis will be needed at a later stage, to test whether any
unintended consequences have flowed from this measure, such as a
trend towards longer custodial sentences for ‘borderline’ cases.
12 Strategy for Justice in Scotland, September 2012.
13 Howard League Scotland, October 2014 (cited above).
14 Owers A, Leighton P, McGrory C, McNeill F, Wheatley P, Review of the
Northern Ireland Prison Service, October 2011.
15 Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008.
16 Faster, Fairer Justice; NIA Bill 37/11-15.
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Appendix 1:
What are the alternatives to imprisonment?
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................... 10
1 Before trial: release pending trial (‘bail’) ....................... 10
UK bail laws in brief ....................................................... 10
Roles of public and private sectors ................................ 11
Impact of bail ................................................................. 12
2 Post-conviction: community sanctions ......................... 12
What are the sentencing options? ................................. 12
Statutory purpose of sentencing ................................... 12
The main types of community sanction ........................ 12
• Community sentences (all of UK) ............................ 13
• Suspended sentences
(England and Wales, Northern Ireland) ..................... 13
• Structured Deferred Sentences (Scotland) ............. 13
Community sentences: how they work .......................... 13
Rehabilitation activity requirements ............................. 15
Localised pilots .............................................................. 15
Control or rehabilitation? ............................................... 15
One size fits all? ............................................................. 15
Role of public and private sectors ................................. 16
Funding .......................................................................... 16
Impact on prisoner numbers ........................................ 16
Other impacts ................................................................ 16
Do community sentences stigmatise? .......................... 17
Are foreign nationals treated differently? ...................... 17
Are there gender-specific programmes? ....................... 18
How are victims’ interests reflected? ........................ 19
Variations to community sentences
in Northern Ireland and Scotland ................................. 20
Suspended sentence orders (SSOs):
how they work ................................................................ 21
Role of public and private sectors ................................. 22
Impact on prisoner numbers ........................................ 22
Other impacts ................................................................ 22
Structured deferred sentences: how they work ............. 22
Impact ............................................................................ 23
3 Community measures post-prison (early release) ........ 23
Overview ........................................................................ 23
The key measures in brief .............................................. 24
Parole: how it works ........................................................... 25
Control or rehabilitation? .............................................. 26
Role of public and the private sectors .......................... 26
Funding ......................................................................... 26
Impact on prisoner numbers ........................................ 26
Wider impacts ............................................................... 26
Home Detention Curfew (HDC) ........................................ 27
How it works .................................................................. 27
Control or rehabilitation? .............................................. 27
Roles of public and private sectors ............................... 27
Funding .......................................................................... 28
Impact on prisoner numbers ........................................ 28
Wider impacts ............................................................... 28
Post-release probation ....................................................... 28
Control or rehabilitation? .............................................. 29
Roles of public and private sectors ............................... 29
Funding ......................................................................... 29
Impact on prisoner numbers ........................................ 29
Wider impacts ............................................................... 30
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 9
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Introduction
The information presented below is an essentially
descriptive account of the various alternatives to prison
which the UK’s criminal justice systems provide. It sets
out the legal foundation of the key measures at all stages
of the process: pre-trial, at sentencing, and after release
from prison. Information is provided on how the measures
work in practice, the roles of criminal justice agencies and
private or public sector bodies in delivering them, and
what the evidence shows about their impact.
The information provided here does not go beyond the
various criminal justice-based alternatives to prison to
analyse the more fundamental causes or consequences of
our heavy use of prison and community-based punishment.
Those are clearly important matters, both in their own right
and as part of any socially just approach to criminal justice
reform. But as they did not form part of the Alternatives to
Custody in Europe project, they are beyond the scope of
this description of alternatives to custody.
1 Before trial: release pending trial (‘bail’)
In the UK, the alternative to detention pre-trial is release,
which may be ordered by the court with or without specific
conditions attached. This pre-trial release is known as
‘bail’ – a person is remanded on bail (in contrast to being
remanded in custody, being ‘on remand’). There can be no
supervision or other community measure imposed, until
conviction for an offence.
The bail system is designed to provide a framework
striking a proper balance between right to liberty of the unconvicted defendant and the public interest in crime
prevention and the administration of justice.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR), Article 5, a person can only be deprived of liberty
on the grounds specified, including for the purpose of
bringing them before the competent legal authority on a
reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or
when it is considered reasonably necessary to prevent
them committing an offence or fleeing. The presumption
under the Convention, therefore, is that bail should be
granted and denial of bail should be justified by relevant
and sufficient reasons, such as:
● A risk that the defendant will fail to appear at trial
● A risk that he/she may interfere with evidence or
witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice
● A risk that he/she will commit a further offence while
on bail
● A disturbance to public order would result, or
● That the defendant would be at risk of harm against
which he/she would be inadequately protected.
All three UK bail systems complement the ECHR
structure and are capable, if applied correctly, of meeting
the above purposes.
In terms of public protection, it has been recognised
that bail law and practice must have public confidence and
10 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
be transparent and consistent. When offences are
committed on bail or individuals flee justice while on bail,
media coverage usually questions the right to bail and
criticises the courts who granted it.1
UK bail laws in brief
In England and Wales and Scotland, the bail system is
statutory and in Northern Ireland, it is based on common
law. All systems are based on the same presumption, that
a person not yet convicted of any offence should be
released until trial. However, in England and Wales, there
is no presumption in favour of bail where the defendant is
charged with murder, manslaughter, rape, attempted
murder or attempted rape. In such cases bail can only be
given in exceptional circumstances and reasons must be
given for any grant of bail. In Scotland, bail cannot be
granted where the charge is murder or treason. In
Northern Ireland, bail can be granted on any charge
including murder.
England and Wales: The law on bail granted by courts is
contained largely in legislation. There are statutory
exceptions to the right to bail. It must not be granted
where the court is satisfied:
a) that the defendant, if released would:
i) fail to surrender to custody
ii) commit an offence while on bail, or
iii)interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice;
or
b) that the defendant should be kept in custody for his/her
own protection.
The law lists factors to be taken into account when the
court decides whether to release, including
● The nature and seriousness of the offence
● The defendant’s social background, paying regard to
the defendant’s character, previous criminal record,
community links
● The defendant’s previous history of compliance with
bail conditions, and
● The strength of the evidence against the defendant.
No conditions should be imposed on release pending
trial unless necessary to ensure the defendant surrenders
to custody in future, or to prevent the commission of an
offence while on bail, or the interference with witnesses or
obstruction of justice. In such cases, the court can impose
conditions, including that the person must:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Inform the police of any change of residence
Not go to certain places
Remain at a specified place during specified times
Not leave the UK
Report at specified times to the police or other authority
Avoid contact with specific persons
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
● Provide a security or surety to the court
● Undergo therapeutic treatment or treatment for
addiction
● Wear an electronic tag, and
● Surrender passport and not apply for any international
travel documents.
As of December 2012, legislation restricts the use of
remand in custody for people who would be unlikely to
receive a custodial sentence on conviction.2 It is too early
to tell whether this will result in a decrease of people
remanded in custody.
Police bail: In addition to the formal court-ordered bail
system, in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, it is
also possible for a suspect to be bailed by the police,
either before a charging decision, or after charge and
before court. As at October 2014, over 70,000 people were
on pre-charge bail from 40 police forces in the UK.3 There
has been a growing trend for police to impose stringent
conditions, such as obliging people to return to a police
station regularly or surrender travel documents. Police bail
practices have drawn criticism from NGOs due to the
excessively long periods for which pre-charge bail can last.
Electronic monitoring: Before the court can impose this, it
must be satisfied that without it, the defendant would not
be granted bail. This is intended to ensure that tagging is
only used where necessary and to support the proper use
of public funds. In practice, its use as a bail condition has
increased significantly.
Northern Ireland: The law on bail is non-statutory. A
presumption exists in favour of bail. Conditions often
imposed include electronic monitoring, curfews, exclusion
or abstinence orders. Grounds for refusal are similar to
those outlined above for England and Wales. However
there are procedural differences between the two systems
and the number of remand prisoners in Northern Ireland
prisons and the length of time they spend awaiting trial
have been criticised.4
A recent report on bail in Northern Ireland
recommended placing the law and procedure on a
statutory footing for greater clarity and rights protection.5
A public consultation followed but progress in
implementing the reforms has been delayed due to other
priorities and is unlikely to be brought forward until the
next Assembly mandate following elections in 2016.
Scotland: The law on bail is based on statutory and
common law provisions. Bail must be granted in any case
where not opposed by the prosecution. Prosecutors are
required to oppose bail based on factors such as: the
accused’s previous criminal record; a history of offending
on bail; likelihood of re-offending; lack of a fixed address;
flight risk; danger to the public; risk to witnesses; and risk
to national security. Even if opposed, bail must be granted
in all cases except those where there is a good reason to
remand in custody based on public interest and the
interests of justice. Guidelines from case law provide
examples for courts to assist them in this decision. The
guidelines refer, for example, to the risks of witness
intimidation or failing to attend trial.
If bail is granted this must be subject to standard bail
conditions. These relate to the need to attend future
hearings, not commit further offences, not interfere with
witnesses and being available for enquires or reports. The
court also has discretion to impose additional conditions
to ensure the standard ones are complied with. These are
not laid down by the law but common examples are that
the accused not approach the victim; adhere to a nightly
curfew; or reside in a bail hostel.
Roles of public and private sectors
England and Wales: Magistrates and crown courts decide
on bail. The National Offender Management Service
(NOMS) is responsible for commissioning and delivering
adult offender management services, in custody and in the
community. This involves managing the Bail
Accommodation and Support Service (BASS) and
arranging tagging and monitoring with private sector
providers, to enforce compliance with curfew and
residence orders.
The BASS is aimed at those aged over 18 who would
have a strong likelihood of being remanded in custody due
to a lack of suitable accommodation and support. The
accommodation, known as ‘bail hostels’, is managed by
privately contracted providers commissioned by NOMS.
Referral and other support services are provided mainly by
the National Probation Service.
Northern Ireland: The bail decision is made by the court
but a police bail system also exists. Probation plays a role
similar to that in England and Wales in providing advice to
the court on suitability, available support and
accommodation. It also liaises with providers of bail
accommodation and electronic monitoring where these
conditions are imposed with the grant of bail.
Scotland: Only a court can authorise a grant of bail.
Criminal Justice Social Workers provide services to courts
geared towards reducing the number of vulnerable groups
and females remanded in custody. Schemes exist to offer
additional support to - or supervision of – people on bail.
The availability of such schemes can influence a decision
to grant bail.
A common example is a “bail information” scheme
whereby information on employment, health, and
community/family support is gathered and verified by
social workers. It helps the court decide whether to grant
bail. Research has shown judges and others approve of the
scheme but complain of its under-resourcing.
In larger cities voluntary sector bodies play a role in
monitoring curfews, supervision and bail accommodation,
as well as providing counselling on problems such as
addiction.6
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 11
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Impact of bail
Statutory purpose of sentencing
Effective use of pre-trial bail reduces the prison population
by controlling numbers remanded in custody. However,
prison places are sometimes taken up, where serious
breaches of bail conditions occur and bail is revoked as a
result.
The impact on individuals will depend on the
conditions, if any, that the grant of bail is subject to in
individual cases. Generally it is accepted that being at
liberty compared to being in custody pending trial offers
greater protection of the suspect’s fundamental and social
rights: employment, housing, family life, presumption of
innocence, fair trial rights and effective trial preparation.
However, the imposition of electronic monitoring has
impacts on individuals and family members and curtails
aspects of normal family and private life. Other restrictions
such as residing in a bail hostel, avoiding certain places,
giving up travel documents can restrict normal
relationships and affect wellbeing. This is all the more so if
the restriction is imposed for excessive periods.
If compared to awaiting trial in custody, release pending
trial is a more satisfactory solution for the suspect, family,
the wider economy and society. Even if remand prisoners
are able to enjoy a regime compliant with international
standards, and this is often not the case in UK prisons, the
disadvantages of imprisoning un-convicted persons are
the costs of doing so (prison place costs, micro and
macro-economic impacts) and the undue infringement of
rights to liberty and a fair trial. Bail impacts are therefore
less severe than being held on remand. If no conditions
(or at least no intrusive or restrictive conditions) are
imposed, the individual’s work, home and private life
should be largely unaffected and the presumption of
innocence protected.
We present statistics on the use of (court-ordered) bail
in all three jurisdictions, in Appendix 3 (section 3: section
2 shows the numbers remanded in custody).
When deciding on sentence the court must have regard to
the purpose of sentencing (as well as to law and guidance
specific to the offence and other circumstances). The
purpose of sentencing is defined by statute8 as:
2 Post-conviction: community sanctions
What are the sentencing options?
Courts in the UK have four types of sentence available:
custodial sentences; community sentences; fines; and
discharges. Discharges are used for very minor offences
when the court decides not to impose a punishment
because the experience of coming to court has been
punishment enough (along with the criminal record
resulting from conviction).
Custodial sentences may be ordered to have immediate
effect or be suspended, i.e. not come into effect unless and
until, for example, a further offence is committed. Courts
can also make ancillary orders when sentencing, such as
compensation orders or driving disqualifications.
Sentencing law and the range of any custodial sentence that
may be imposed are set down in statute, but additional
guidance for sentencers is also issued by independent
bodies (in England and Wales, the Sentencing Council).7
12 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
a) the punishment of offenders
b) the reduction of crime (including through deterrence)
c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders
d) the protection of the public, and
e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons
affected by their offences.
In England and Wales, guidance states that the court
must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the
opinion that the offence (or combination of offences) is:
‘so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community
sentence can be justified’. Other preconditions of a
custodial sentence are that (in most cases) a pre-sentence
report has been obtained and the defendant is legally
represented or has been offered the opportunity to be
represented but has refused.9 The sentence must take into
account the seriousness of the offence by reference to
factors such as the person’s culpability, the harm caused,
whether the harm was intended or foreseen, and any
previous convictions.10
There is a statutory requirement on the Sentencing
Council to ‘have regard to the cost of different sentences and
their relative effectiveness in preventing re-offending’ when
exercising its functions, notably when drafting guidelines.11
Some have called for clearer guidelines to ensure that shortterm prison sentences are used less, that prison is not seen
as a gateway to rehabilitation, and that in relation to women
in particular, there is less resort to custody.12
Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) prepared by probation
officers are considered before sentencing, both in cases
heard by magistrates (where the maximum custodial
sentence is six months’ imprisonment), and in those
heard by judges in the Crown courts (the more serious
cases, where juries deliver the verdict and judges pass
sentence).
PSRs are designed to give information to the sentencer
about the circumstances and context of the law-breaking
and the individual’s personal situation, including any
support needed and its availability. A PSR should contain a
recommendation on the appropriate sentence type, which
magistrates, in practice, usually follow and sentencing
judges sometimes follow. A recent report recommended
that PSRs should be dispensed with in some magistrates’
courts cases, and replaced by oral reports from probation
officers in court, to speed up court processes.13
The main types of community sanction
We will focus on three types of alternative sanction
currently applied in the UK: community sentences,
suspended sentences and (in Scotland only) structured
deferred sentences. In addition to these, however, it is
important to remember that fines are commonly used in
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
all three jurisdictions (with prison sometimes used to
punish fine defaulters).
In common with other countries that have introduced
or extended these types of sentence, the UK’s aim was to
control rising reconviction rates and stem the relentless
rise in prison numbers. Several reports have highlighted
the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences, for those
who would otherwise receive short prison sentences.
These draw on data showing the poor cost-benefit ratio of
such sentences. Short
prison sentences cost
much more than (even
The rise
intensive) supervision; they
in people sent to prison
also lead to higher
for not complying with a
reconviction rates, with the
community sentence.
consequent further costs
(England and Wales:
and other harms.14
1995-2009)
However, the current
system of alternative
sanctions has a negative side. Between 1995 and 2009 the
number of people imprisoned in England and Wales for
failing to comply with a community sentence grew by 470%.15
470%
● Community sentences (all of UK)
In England and Wales these are called Community Orders.
They involve a ‘menu’ of possible requirements such as
community payback, probation supervision and
rehabilitation activities of various kinds. In Scotland, the
alternatives include Community Payback Orders, Drug
Treatment and Testing Orders and Restriction of Liberty
Orders. In Northern Ireland, the alternatives include the
Probation Order, Community Service Order, Combination
Order, and Supervised Activity Orders.
● Suspended sentences
(England and Wales, Northern Ireland)
These are custodial sentences served in the community
unless the sentence is breached, which can result in recall
to custody. In England and Wales, the Suspended
Sentence Order (SSO) can be given for prison sentences
of up to two years.
● Structured Deferred Sentences (Scotland)
These orders involve deferring sentence for good
behaviour, and are aimed at low-tariff offences by people
with underlying needs. They aim to give the person time
and support to address the needs that led to the offence,
and to assess progress in doing so before deciding
whether and how to sentence.
Community sentences: how they work
In England and Wales these are called Community Orders.
Where a person aged 18 or over is convicted of an offence,
the court can make a Community Order if satisfied that
the offence is serious enough to justify it.16 As a result of
recent legislation,17 a Community Order must now contain
at least one punitive element (eg community payback,
electronic tagging, or participation in a programme).
A Community Order can last less than a day or as long
as three years. It can include one or more of the following
requirements (which also apply to suspended sentence
orders):
1 Unpaid work, known as ‘community payback’
2 Rehabilitation activity requirement or ‘RAR’ (after 1
February 2015 when Offender Rehabilitation Act took
effect)
3 Participation in a programme
4 Prohibited activity
5 Curfew (usually enforced by electronic monitoring)
6 Exclusion (ban from entering a specified place)
7 Residence at a specified address
8 Mental health treatment
9 Drug rehabilitation
10 Alcohol treatment
11 A supervision requirement (only offences pre-Offender
Rehabilitation Act 2014)
12 If the person is under 25, an attendance centre
requirement
13 Activity requirement (only offences pre-Offender
Rehabilitation Act 2014)
14 Foreign travel ban.
Sentencing guidelines state that for low-level
seriousness offences, only one requirement will normally
be appropriate but that if more than one is applied, the
duration can be shortened. In practice two requirements
(community payback and supervision) have made up the
vast majority of all community based sentences, with half
the possible requirements relatively rarely used. Probation
officers guide the court on the suitability or availability of
requirements in individual cases.
The most important requirements are described below,
in order of frequency of use by the courts.
Community payback: this requires the person to work
unpaid, for between 40 and 300 hours on a suitable
project organised by probation. The number of hours is
set by the court. The work is usually done in 8-hour shifts
at weekends but if the person is unemployed, it is usually
done during normal working hours. The type of work will
vary depending on locality and the probation service
operating the scheme. Common projects are clearing
public areas, painting buildings or removing graffiti. The
public can nominate projects. Eligibility criteria are:
●
●
●
●
●
●
The work must benefit the local community
The project must not take paid work away from others
No one must make a profit from the work
It must be challenging and demanding
It must be worthwhile and constructive
The person must be seen to be putting something back
into the community18
In some probation areas,19 people can enrol on training
courses as part of their Community Payback activities and
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 13
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
gain qualifications such as the Construction Skills
Certificate Scheme, fork-lift truck drivers’ licences, painting
and decorating, horticulture and health and safety.
Supervision: The individual is placed under the
supervision of a probation officer for up to three years.
They must attend appointments with the officer or any
other person as directed. The requirement may be
imposed for the purpose of ‘promoting the offender’s
rehabilitation’. Supervision orders are available for low,
medium or high level of seriousness, but are rarely set as
stand-alone requirements. More commonly they are used
to support activity or treatment programmes.
Programmes: Programme requirements are accredited
schemes offering specified activities aiming to help
address attitudes and behaviour that contribute to
offending. Programmes fall into four categories: general
offending, violence, sexual offending and domestic
violence. These must be recommended by a probation
officer at the point of sentence. They are only offered for
medium to high-level seriousness offending. Examples
currently on offer include anger management,
aggression replacement, education, training and
employment, thinking and communication skills,
domestic abuse, sexual offending and drink-drive
rehabilitation programmes. NOMS works with public
health bodies in the commissioning of treatment
programmes.
Curfew: This can require someone to be at a fixed address
for between two and 16 hours during a 24-hour period for
up to 12 months. The order can be enforced with
electronic tagging. Tags can only be issued if there is a
monitoring system for curfew in their area. Monitoring can
also be done via spot-check, with private security firm
sending employees to check on the person at home, but
tagging is more common. The order is often combined
with supervision or unpaid work requirements.
Drug rehabilitation: This can only be ordered with the
person’s consent. The shortage of places has been
criticised. Legislation in 2012 removed the statutory
minimum of six months for DRRs, allowing for greater
flexibility in tailoring and delivering treatment and recovery
options according to individual need.20
Alcohol treatment programmes: this can only be ordered
with the person’s consent. The lack of places has been
criticised in view of high proportion of alcohol-related
problems among those convicted of offences.
Prohibited activity orders: these are intended to prevent
people from committing further offences of the same type
he or she has just been convicted of. Often an individual is
prohibited from going into a certain area where he or she
has caused trouble or from carrying the items used to
commit criminal damage.
14 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Mental health treatment requirement: the order will only
be made if the court is satisfied that the condition is
treatable, and with the person’s consent. Lack of
availability of mental health treatment has been criticised
as has the unrealistic threshold for eligibility for treatment
and difficulty in getting mental health practitioners to
support treatment programmes. Legislative changes
introduced in 2012 aimed at relaxing requirements to
make these orders easier to grant.
Attendance centres (for those under 25): Official guidance
states that although they are primarily a punishment
(restriction of liberty in a controlled environment), the
activities and instruction offered are also designed to
strengthen desistance factors. The centres must include
social education and life-skills training to: increase
employability; maintain physical and mental health
(including being aware of the effects of alcohol and drugs);
have successful relationships (including respect for
parents/partners; parenting skills and social skills); and
deal effectively with high risk situations (including first aid,
risks of carrying weapons and ‘gang culture’).
Women’s attendance centres have been established in all
three jurisdictions. These provide interventions for women
that may include probation and other community
sentencing options, as well as other services that
recognise that women are more likely than men to have
multiple, complex needs, which influence their lawbreaking. Frequently, trauma such as sexual violence or
domestic abuse, mental health problems, substance
issues and financial difficulties – or a combination of these
- can underlie law-breaking. When effectively resourced,
the centres can strengthen the work of probation and help
divert women from prosecution and from prison.
A 2007 report on women in the criminal justice system21
clearly demonstrated that women offenders need specialist
support. In England and Wales, women’s centres were
placed on a more secure policy footing as a result of this
report’s recommendation for more of such centres and
government funding for their support. Local probation
teams have set up arrangements with voluntary sector
women’s centres and women’s community support bodies.
Links are offered with specialist organisations and services
across a wide field of needs. Programmes offered are
designed to tackle the causes of law-breaking including
homelessness, reduced access to welfare benefits,
domestic or family abuse, family and parenting challenges,
health and substance issues. The centres improve women’s
access to training, volunteering and work placements.
Probation teams provide information to courts at the point
of sentencing, on activities and support services offered
and available places. Residence requirements (eg residing
at an approved place such as a probation hostel) are
sometimes added to women’s centre attendance orders for
high risk offenders and include a supervised curfew.
Activity Requirements designed for women are
frequently delivered in women’s centres. An example is
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
‘Wiser’, offered in Greater Manchester, which incorporates
ten 75 minute sessions of group work plus one-to-one
appointments designed to engage, motivate and help with
anger, emotional disturbance and troubled relationships.
A similar centre for women in Scotland is the 218
Centre operated by the charity, Turning Point Scotland. It
has a 12-bed residential unit and a day service programme
offering a range of group work sessions (sometimes part
of community sentence orders), one-to-one support and a
clinic helping with mental and physical health issues. As
well as dealing with women who have been convicted of
an offence, it is also designed to offer ways to divert
women from prosecution. Access is also available to a
clinic which deals with mental and physical health issues.
In Northern Ireland, a women’s centre in Belfast, the
Inspire Women’s Project, was positively evaluated for its
work in supporting women involved in the criminal justice
system. However, its services have now been suspended
due to lack of funds.
Rehabilitation activity requirements
As these are a new kind of order, little information about
their value has so far emerged. Some CRCs have
welcomed the RAR, noting the greater flexibility provided
and suggesting it will enable offender managers to make
Community Orders more responsive to individual needs
and ensure targeted support is offered for employment,
training, education and restorative justice.22
Localised pilots
In some areas, alternatives to custody are piloted locally
for specific groups. In parts of the north-west of England,
two such schemes have been tested. Intensive Community
Order (ICO) was launched in June 2014 and is aimed
specifically at young men aged 18 to 25 for whom
magistrates, when sentencing, are considering short-term
custody. This followed an Intensive Alternative to Custody
(IAC) programme launched in 2009, which was said to
have delivered up to 10% better outcomes than short-term
prison in reducing reconvictions. Both schemes are
described as blending probation supervision with
community payback, as well as offering education,
training, employment opportunities, health and wellbeing
advice, and other support.
who has served a sentence, and as an obligation of society
and the state which is not dependent on personal reform
but necessary for its achievement.24
In practice, the rehabilitation impact of any community
sentence will depend on the requirements selected by the
sentencer, their suitability for the person concerned, and
how well they are provided during their delivery. Most of
the requirements available to courts have some
rehabilitative potential. But sentences are often structured
to combine this element with one of control or
punishment. Control is present even in the purely
rehabilitative requirements, to the extent that failure to
participate could result in more punitive requirements
being imposed, or support being withdrawn. Rehabilitative
impact requires probation staff and others to achieve
active engagement in the programme or activity and
ensure the necessary support is in place.
Guidance to sentencers25 on how to select requirements
refers to the statutory purposes of sentencing (set out above)
by giving the following indications for each sentence type:
● Community payback - punishment + reparation +
rehabilitation
● Activity requirement - rehabilitation + reparation
● Participation in a programme - rehabilitation
● Prohibited activity requirement - punishment + protection
● Curfew (usually enforced by electronic monitoring) punishment + protection
● Exclusion - punishment and protection
● Residence requirement - rehabilitation + protection
● Mental health treatment - rehabilitation
● Drug rehabilitation - rehabilitation
● Alcohol treatment - rehabilitation
● Supervision requirement - rehabilitation
● Attendance centre requirement – punishment.
In comparison to the type of community sentences they
replaced in 2005 Community Orders were seen as better
by probation staff in a survey.26 Greater flexibility and
potential to target to individuals’ needs were highlighted.
Activity requirements were noted as offering a wide range
of activities, from day-centre attendance to education,
skills assessment and training, and making reparation to
victims or persons affected by the crime.
Control or rehabilitation?
One size fits all?
Rehabilitation is one of the statutory purposes of
sentencing and, in theory at least, sentencers are
supposed to have regard to rehabilitation prospects when
passing sentence. Rehabilitation as a concept in the UK
has traditionally been associated with reform, personal
change and helping people to move away from ways of
thinking that, for them as individuals, could lead them to
offend. In order for rehabilitation (according to this
description) to be possible, a person must have fair access
to the resources and opportunities necessary to desist
from law-breaking, for personal change to be possible.23
Rehabilitation can thus be seen as a right of the person
If the court orders unpaid work, or participation in a
programme, or imposes some other requirement, that
should reflect a thorough assessment by the court, aided
by probation, of the person’s individual needs and history.
Requirements with a therapeutic and/or treatment content,
often in combination with supervision, can be imposed by
sentencers, but are less frequently used in England and
Wales than unpaid work and electronic monitoring.
In practice the degree of individualisation in any
community based sentence will depend greatly on whether
the court is provided with the information needed to make
a proper assessment. The key tool is the pre-sentencing
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 15
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
report prepared by probation together with any information
on available programmes or treatment places. Advice to
the court on sentencing has traditionally been a key part of
the probation officer’s role but the recent restructuring of
the probation system in England and Wales could result in
the body responsible for this work (the National Probation
Service) having less time to prepare the report. Future
streamlining of court processes could result in the reports
being dispensed with altogether at some hearings.27
In England and Wales unpaid work is not, in reality,
individualised for the specific person, but based on what
programmes are available: the selection is carried out by
the local CRC, sometimes from among work programmes
nominated by the public in the local area. There is also no
individual variation of tagging regimes to suit individuals:
once subject to a tagging order, people under this form of
surveillance are treated in exactly the same way. It has
been shown that sentencers imposing a non-custodial
sentence more frequently impose community payback and
supervision than a treatment order or programme
requirement. This trend may be increased as a result of
the statutory requirement introduced in 2013 that every
community order must contain a punitive element.
Role of public and private sectors
Private sector providers are increasingly involved in
Community Payback and delivering accredited
programmes, as well as in electronic monitoring. Some
have questioned the wisdom of continuing to commission
justice services from Serco, given that in 2013 the
company had to repay £68.5 million to the MOJ after
overcharging for tagging.
NOMS is the public body which commissions the
services of public and private sector providers including
CRCs and the third party providers of programmes. There
has been controversy over the use of private companies to
manage and supervise unpaid work in the community.
Questions have been raised by the National Association of
Probation Officers union over the claims about savings
made by Serco, the first such provider to supervise unpaid
work. The union (together with other unions representing
probation workers) has also challenged the legality of such
work being supervised by private as opposed to public
bodies, pointing to provisions against this in the UN’s
Forced Labour Convention.
For some requirements, such as prohibited activities or
exclusion orders, the police will have a role in monitoring
the orders. Public health services are involved in the
commissioning of substance misuse treatment and testing
services required by community sentences.
If Community Orders are not complied with, the CRC
may involve the NPS which in turn will take steps towards
requiring compliance. Courts and prisons may then
become involved.
Funding
Funding provided by the MOJ, through NOMS, has been
cut over recent years and has been concentrated on
16 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
programmes aimed at those seen as ‘higher risk’. This has
resulted in a large reduction in the number of accredited
programmes completed each year since 2009/10.28
Government funding to Women’s Centres is now restricted
to programmes for women who have been convicted,
aiming to prevent their reoffending. Work with women
seen as being at risk of offending, while still done by
Women’s Centres, is no longer funded by government.
Impact on prisoner numbers
There is no evidence that the use of community
sentences has led to a reduction in the numbers in
prison, despite evidence of an increase in their use over
recent years. A clue as to the reason is contained in a
2010 government report, Breaking the Cycle: Effective
Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders.29
This pointed to a decrease in the use of fines in favour of
community sentences and concluded that there had been
an ‘upwards drift in severity’ of sentences for certain
types of offence. It found that this could explain why
prison numbers were not decreasing. Research by the
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has also highlighted
the risk of ‘net widening’ when community sentences are
over-used.30
Until recent legislative changes,31 the sanction for
breach of community sentence was imprisonment.
Courts now have wider powers to avoid resort to custody
for breach, but it is too early to tell whether they will be
used effectively. The risk will remain that breach will lead
to custody. Because of this, and since community
sentences are demanding and punitive, they should not
be used where a fine or discharge would be suitable, or
for low risk offenders.
Evidence suggests that Women’s Attendance Centres
are effective at diverting women from law-breaking and
from breaching community orders, and more so than
short custodial sentences.32 In England and Wales, the
future of attendance centres and similar initiatives now
delivered by the private sector will depend on how the
reforms under the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ (TR)
programme take effect and the extent to which the
Centres can prove that their programmes and services
can reduce reconvictions.33 We describe TR’s main
features in Appendix 2, in our account of the probation
system in England and Wales.
Statistical data on community sentences in all three
jurisdictions is given in section 5 of Appendix 3.
Other impacts
Government data suggests that community sentences
outperform short spells behind bars in terms of life
outcomes and reconviction rates, but the data is limited.
The detailed analysis contained in ‘cohort studies’ focus
mainly on reconviction rates for those who have received
community orders. It seeks to show which individuals are
more likely to reoffend and the factors that might explain
this. The findings show that re-offending is greatest in
the first months of the Community Order and that
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
offenders often have complex needs, some of which are
related to their law-breaking. The evidence reinforces the
importance of a wide range of ‘static’ factors in
predicting future offending, such as gender and index
offence. It also shows that early interventions based on
the effects of ‘dynamic’ factors (such as employment,
accommodation, relationships) can be effective.
The government also publishes limited data on
employment which suggests that people who have
completed community orders are twice as likely to be in
employment on completing an order, than people on
release from prison.34
Do community sentences stigmatise?
There are two potentially stigmatising features in our
range of community measures: unpaid work under
community payback orders, and the requirement to wear
a tag and submit to a curfew.
Unpaid work
The requirement to complete unpaid work as part of a
‘community payback’ order is a frequent feature of
sentencing in England and Wales. Work must be
‘challenging and demanding’ and ‘must be seen to be
putting something back into the community’.35 It typically
involves carrying out work seen to benefit the local
community, done at weekends, under supervision.
Those performing unpaid work must wear high
visibility orange ‘tabards’ or jackets bearing the words
‘community payback’. This is a mandatory requirement36
but the practice has been in place since shortly after the
payback scheme was launched in 2005. The rules state
that the jackets’ purpose ‘is not to stigmatise or
humiliate offenders’, but to comply with health and safety
requirements and to ensure the work is visible to the
public, providing evidence that community sentences are
being enforced and thereby improving public confidence
in such sentences.
Projects often involve cleaning or removing rubbish,
perhaps the results of other criminal or anti-social
behaviour such as graffiti or discarded drug-use items.
Some may argue that this activity is of minimal
rehabilitative value and carries disproportionate stigma.
Examples of other kinds of activity that have (less
commonly) been ordered as community payback, which
may have greater socialising and rehabilitative value,
include work with charities helping to grow food and
deliver it to local care homes, and working in stables to
enable disabled children to take part in horse-riding.
The rights of those undertaking such work do not
extend as far as those enjoyed under UK legislation by
employees, for example, there is no right to payment of a
minimum wage or not to be unfairly dismissed. However,
equality and health and safety legislation must be
observed.
There are rules and safeguards in place explaining to
providers what they must do to respect the equality,
diversity and safety of those undertaking unpaid work. A
Community Payback Operating Manual contains rules
about the work placements to be provided, including that
equipment and transport are provided and maintained
safely, that work sites are overseen, that needs of
individuals, including their personal safety, are identified
and matched to suitable work placements. The manual
states that ‘where practicable’, a sole female should not be
placed in a work group of males and a male supervisor,
that work should not interfere with the person’s other
work/training commitments, caring responsibilities or
religious observance. The manual also provides (but as an
option rather than a national requirement) that a work
placement can ‘maximise opportunities for the
development and accreditation of skills to meet the needs
of offenders with an identified employment need’.
Tagging
Electronic monitoring and the requirement to wear a tag is
punishment and control with no rehabilitative value (except
to the limited extent that it may reduce non-compliance
with supervision or programme attendance). It has been
argued that it stigmatises, particularly in view of the need
to wear a large black plastic device around one ankle at all
times. Changes in dress and restrictions on the ability to
engage in sports are among the potentially stigmatising
effects, as are the effects that seeing the ankle tag may
have on the person’s children or intimate partners.
Are foreign nationals treated differently?
The answer depends to some extent on which alternative
to prison is being considered, and on the immigration
status of the foreign national. There are no explicit
sentencing restrictions on foreign nationals. The Equality
Act 2010 would prevent any unlawful discrimination by
government bodies, probation services or CRCs on
grounds of race (defined as including colour, nationality
(including citizenship) ethnic or national origin).
Citizens of European Economic Area (EEA) countries
may be termed foreign nationals, but are exercising treaty
rights by being in the UK. For nationals from states
outside of the EEA, eligibility for some measures will
depend on whether there is a legal right to remain in the
UK and what that right derives from. Undocumented
migrants, illegal entrants and over-stayers face far greater
barriers than EEA citizens.
In practice, access to effective rehabilitation is more
difficult for foreign nationals. Immigration status will
dictate a person’s entitlement to public services crucial for
rehabilitation such as accommodation, health, benefits
and employment. Difficulties in communicating in English
and accessing information and support could increase the
risks for a foreign national’s chances of rehabilitation and
desistence.
In view of the statistical over-representation of nonnationals in UK prisons,37 questions arise as to whether
this is due to the greater prevalence of law-breaking
serious enough to warrant custody, or to a greater
propensity to arrest and prosecute non-nationals or to
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 17
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
sentence them to custody instead of an alternative. There
is no statistical data to assess this.38
Pre-trial
Eligibility for bail is likely to be influenced by nationality
and immigration status. Courts can refuse bail on the
basis of a risk of absconding. When there is insufficient
information or evidence against which to assess this risk,
the default option will sometimes be to refuse bail,
effectively placing a heavy burden on defendants to prove
that they will not abscond.
Alternative sanctions
However, courts themselves are not bound by equality
laws when sentencing. There are no express provisions or
criteria applicable to the consideration whether nonnational defendants should be given an SSO or CO with a
probation element, or a prison sentence: this decision
should be made based on the same considerations as for
any defendant.
The pre-sentence report is an important aid to the court
in deciding on custody or a community sentence but the
law does not require PSRs in all cases where a foreign
national is being sentenced. In practice, whether a report
is requested will come down to the court’s culture and
how pro-active the probation service is in seeking to
persuade the court of the need for one. This, in turn, will
be influenced by how suitable the person is for a
community sentence.
It has been suggested39 that courts are less likely to
consider non-nationals as suitable. Reasons may include:
irregular immigration status precluding access to benefits
or work; perceived risk of absconding before finishing the
sentence; or to facilitate deportation after completing the
sentence. Evidence cited in a recent article suggests
reluctance to recommend some community penalties for
foreign nationals – supervision, attendance on
programmes – compared to nationals. Possible
explanations offered are perceived difficulties in giving full
effect to the sanctions, and lack of skills and awareness on
the part of probation staff leading to cultural stereotyping.
The evidence suggests that both probation staff and
sentencers favour community payback over supervision for
both foreign nationals and irregular migrants.40
Post-custody
There are no rules restricting access of foreign national
prisoners to resettlement or rehabilitation services or
programmes. However, access to pre-release services will
be less useful in practice where the prisoner is to be
deported as opposed to being resettled in the UK.
As for eligibility for parole or licence and the availability
of probation as a condition thereof, different rules apply
to non-nationals. Those who are subject to a criminal
court recommendation for deportation can be detained at
specific stages of the deportation procedure, pending
their removal. Foreign nationals who have served prison
sentences of 12 months or longer are subject to the
18 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
automatic deportation provisions of the UK Borders Act
2007. They can be held in immigration detention pending
deportation. Such people will have contact with probation
services while in prison, and again after their release from
immigration removal centres on immigration bail while
under licence. Where a foreign national held in
immigration detention remains under licence, they must
notify probation of their proposed bail address and get
this approved, before applying for release.
A recent Probation Instruction41 sets out guidance for
staff assessing applications by those under licence to
relocate to a non-UK jurisdiction. It sets out requirements
for close family or residential ties or other reasons such
as compassionate grounds to agree to the request.
Regard must be had to the nature of the index offence,
and whether connected with overseas activities such as
frauds involving an overseas company, extremism with
international dimensions etc.
In response to the reforms introduced by the TR
system questions were raised by the NGO Detention
Advice Service (DAS).42 DAS asked how foreign nationals
would be included in the planned probation and
rehabilitation reforms. The response was to confirm such
individuals would be removed ‘at the earliest opportunity’
but would still benefit from ‘a range of activities to
support their eventual release into society’ while serving
their sentences. It was not explained whether this referred
only to prison-based activities or also to probation
supervision in the community.
The NGO, Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), has
argued that foreign nationals in immigration detention
are a ‘low priority among probation staff’, who often
assume the person will be deported when this may not in
fact be the case: 40% of deportation orders are
successfully appealed and many who are ultimately
deported will spend months or years on immigration bail
in the community before this. They should not therefore
be ignored or refused probation assistance.43 BID has
urged the MOJ to consider the needs of foreign nationals
in the future provision of rehabilitative services.
Are there gender-specific programmes?
There is no specific sentencing regime applicable to
females in the UK jurisdictions. However, gender should
be taken into account by offender managers when
considering the support to be offered.44 In some areas,
schemes and programmes designed to provide for
women’s needs are available, as set out below.
England and Wales: A 2014 report found that most female
prisoners are serving short-term sentences for nonviolent, low-level law-breaking. Two-thirds are serving
sentences of six months or less.45 The average sentence
length for women has been increasing and was 2.7
months longer in 2013 than in 2002. The average cost of a
woman’s prison place is £56,415; almost three times the
cost of an intensive community order at £10,000-£15,000.
Many female prisoners experience high rates of mental
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
health disorders, have been victims of sexual and domestic
violence, and suffer from substance addictions. Often,
women serving short sentences are reconvicted: 54% of
women leaving prison are reconvicted within one year; for
those serving less than 12 months this increases to 64%.
The report argues that the Sentencing Council should
review sentencing guidelines to address these issues, but
there has been no move in this direction to date.
Following campaigns for better provision for women,
the government added a clause into the Offender
Rehabilitation Bill 2014, placing a duty on the Justice
Secretary to ensure that contracts with the new probation
providers consider and identify the particular needs of
women. This could help to ensure that consideration of
the need to provide gender-specific services informs
future commissioning decisions.
Aiming to address some of the issues faced by women
passing through the criminal justice system, Women’s
Centres have been set up throughout the UK. There are
also NGOs actively campaigning for reduced use of
custody for women and greater use of alternatives. For
example, Women in Prison has called for better
rehabilitation services and stronger accommodation
support (in addition to a reduction in the use of custody
for women).
There are also programmes specifically for men. These,
for example, provide support to young fathers, or men
who want to address domestic violence or relationship
problems. These programmes are usually offered by
charities as accredited programmes and supported by
probation. Such charities include, for example, Safe
Ground and Bandofbrothers.46
In March 2013 the government published Strategic
Objectives for Female Offenders.47 An advisory board
meets four times a year to discuss progress on these. The
focus is on preventing reoffending. The objectives of the
strategy tie in with the policies of the TR programme. The
board is tasked with is working with sentencers in
promoting the better use of alternatives and it held regular
meetings in 2013 and 2014.
Northern Ireland: The Northern Ireland Executive
published a three-year strategy on 29 October 2010,
entitled ‘A Strategy to Manage Women Offenders and
those Vulnerable to Offending Behaviour’. A key aim of the
strategy is to reduce the number of women entering the
criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. To achieve
this, it focused on four areas:
● Providing alternatives to prosecution and custody
● Reducing women’s offending
● Gender-specific community supervision and
interventions, and
● Developing a gender-specific approach to custody.
This was followed by a 2013-2016 update report,48 noting
areas of progress including use of fixed penalty notices in
place of prosecution, supervised activity orders and fines in
place of custody, reducing the use of custody for nonpayment of fines, and developing models for better
resettlement support and rehabilitation. The report called
for further progress on diverting women and girls from lawbreaking and prosecution through targeted early
intervention work. It noted Scotland’s progress in this area.
Scotland: Following the doubling of Scotland’s female
prison population in a decade, the Scottish Commission
on Women Offenders was asked in 2011 to report on how
to reverse this trend. It reported in 2012 and its
recommendations included: supporting a range of
reoffending reduction projects, including the provision of
mentoring support by public social partnerships; and
piloting a multi-agency approach to diversion from
prosecution. The Scottish Government accepted the
recommendations and took action to implement almost
all of them, including by making funding available.49
How are victims’ interests reflected?
This happens to a limited extent, through the following
processes at the point of sentence and subsequently:
Victim Personal Statements (VPS)
In England and Wales, police will refer the victim to
support organisations when the offence is first reported.
Police also ask victims if they want to provide a VPS
explaining how the crime has affected them or other family
members. The police ask whether the victim would like
this read out in court if the suspected perpetrator is
convicted. If the court so chooses, the VPS is read out
after the verdict is given and before final sentence. The
court considers the VPS before sentencing and it is
common for judges to refer to these in published
‘sentencing remarks’ released after trial (short statements
which explain how the sentence takes account of the harm
that the offence caused).
In Scotland, Victim Statements were piloted in 2003
and then introduced in 2009 for victims of certain higher
tariff offences. Changes were made by the Victims and
Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014. In Northern Ireland, there
are victim information schemes and liaison services
similar in some respects to those in England and Wales.
Victims can make Victim Impact Statements which the
prosecutor draws to the court’s attention, although
research has suggested50 these are mainly restricted in to
cases of sexual or violent offences.
Duties to inform and liaise with victims
Probation staff have various statutory responsibilities to
contact victims after sentencing to ensure they are
informed of the measures imposed.
In England and Wales, after sentencing, police or
prosecution service staff in court Witness Care Units
(WCU explain to the victim the meaning and effect of the
sentence and, if the victim is eligible for Victim CS, must
refer the victim’s details to the VLU no later than twenty
working days after the court notifies the WCU of the
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 19
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
sentence. The VLU must then contact the victim and
ensure the necessary information and support is provided
in accordance with the scheme (see below).
The NPS has a statutory responsibility to contact
victims of serious sexual and violent offences within 40
working days of the sentence where the person receives a
minimum of 12 months imprisonment or certain disposals
under mental health legislation. These people are subject
to a period of supervision on licence, monitored by the
probation service. They must adhere to specified
conditions and victims can request extra conditions that
relate specifically to them, such as a non-contact order or
an exclusion zone from a particular area during the
supervision period.
Other duties to inform arise before the person is released
from custody. There are several key stages when the victim
liaison officer (VLO) must inform the victim about the
progress of the sentence and planned release process. These
include when the person applies for early or temporary
release on licence and when the Parole Board is making an
assessment. Victims can provide separate statements on
impact and their concerns about release at this point.
Victims can also apply to attend parole hearings. Victims are
given an opportunity to make representations at various
stages and the VLO and probation staff must facilitate this.
However, victims’ views are at this stage of little direct
influence on the decision as other factors are more central to
the release decision: see under ‘Parole’, in Appendix 1.
NOMS has issued a manual for those working in
probation explaining all aspects of victim contact
scheme.51 This explains all the obligations and expected
standards of performance, from the first contact between
victim and probation to the final stage of supervision after
custody, and under ongoing licence conditions and public
protection requirements. This manual also explains how to
ensure that any disclosure of information to victims by
probation staff is necessary and proportionate.
In Northern Ireland, there are various statutory
requirements in place and a Victims Policy and Victims
Code of Practice have been issued.52 Since 2005,
legislation53 has required the PBNI to make information
available to victims about the nature and duration of
supervision orders and other requirements of the sentence
imposed on their perpetrator and in relation to releases on
licence.
Restorative justice
This process is sometimes offered to the victim if the
service is available in their area. In its classic form,
restorative justice (RJ) involves meetings between a
trained facilitator and the victim and offender, leading
eventually to a ‘conference’ at which victim and offender,
in the presence of the facilitator, are given the opportunity
to discuss the impact and background of the law-breaking
and how to move forward. RJ can be used for any type of
crime and at any stage of the criminal justice system,
including alongside a prison sentence or community
measure. The offender must have admitted the crime, and
20 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
both victim and offender must be willing to participate. RJ
practices can include other communication methods, such
as letters or recorded interviews.
All three jurisdictions have operated RJ for some years
although access to it is patchy across parts of the UK, so
the service is not yet guaranteed even if both victim and
offender are willing to engage in it.
In England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice has
expressed strong commitment to using RJ at every stage
of the criminal process. It launched an action plan and a
steering group in 2012 with a view to achieving this.
Legislation in 2014 amended sentencing laws to enable
courts to defer sentencing to give time for a RJ
requirement to be carried out.54 RJ activity is only
permitted where both offender and victim consent.
Minimum standards have been developed for RJ
practitioners. Coordination of RJ work among prisons,
probation and other providers is aided by the Restorative
Justice Council.
Since the Transforming Rehabilitation restructuring, RJ is
being piloted by CRCs in some areas. In London, it is
delivered as a specified activity requirement of community
sentences and suspended sentences. Elsewhere, it is
provided as part of the victim liaison service for victims of
people sentenced to more than 12 months in custody. Best
practice standards for RJ are set by the RJC and NOS are
also available on key performance criteria. RJ programmes in
prisons have grown significantly since 2000. Many of these
focus on developing awareness of harms to victims and
family members, rather than direct meetings with victims.
Doubts have been expressed about whether RJ really
represents an alternative to imprisonment and can help
reduce imprisonment.55 Some argue that RJ has been coopted and has become an add-on to other criminal justice
practice and sanctions, rather than a real alternative.
Compensation orders
All three jurisdictions feature the power of sentencers to
order the defendant to pay compensation to the victim.
This can be ordered where the offence has caused
personal injury, loss or damage. Compensation orders are
not available in all cases and the rules and procedures vary
between the jurisdictions.
Variations to community sentences
in Northern Ireland and Scotland
Northern Ireland: The court can make any of the following
orders as alternative sanctions:
● Fines
● Probation orders
● Community service orders requiring unpaid work in the
community. These can last between 40 hours and 240
hours
● Combination orders, combining a probation order and
a community service order. The period of supervision
can last from one to three years. The community
service part can range from 40 to 100 hours
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
● Other orders (for example, supervision and treatment
orders, residence requirements, activity orders, and
community responsibility orders), and
● Curfews, usually monitored by tag.
With the exception of fines, the above orders are all
supervised by the NI Probation Board (NIPB). NIPB
currently delivers accredited and approved programmes
towards helping with individual problems. Examples are
anger management and cognitive behavioural
programmes, domestic abuse and sex offender treatment
programmes. Some are complemented by referrals to third
sector providers such as Addiction NI, for those required
to undertake drug or alcohol treatment programmes.
Probation staff can also refer people to attend these
programmes voluntarily. The recent inspection report
stressed importance of speedy entry to these programmes
and pointed to several cases where immediate places had
not been available and the person was then breached or
committed a further offence in the interim period.56
Funding cuts have badly affected many NGOs and
voluntary sector bodies providing services and
programmes. For example the Inspire Women’s Project,
set up to provide a comprehensive set of support services
for women convicted or at risk of offending in NI, saw its
work suspended in 2015 due to lack of funds, despite
positive evaluation reports.
Fine defaulters being sent to prison had been identified
as a long-standing factor in rising prison numbers by 2011
in Northern Ireland. A report on the prison system in 2011
found that in one women’s prison, half the inmates were
there for fine default.57 It recommended Supervised Activity
Orders as the norm for fine default rather than
imprisonment. More broadly, the same report
recommended a statutory presumption against custody for
those who would face sentences of three months or less,
in favour of properly resourced community penalties. This
has not been implemented.
Scotland: Scotland brought the Community Payback Order
(CPO) into force in February 2011, to replace Community
Service Orders, Probation Orders and Supervised
Attendance Orders. The CPO sits alongside other
community-based court orders including the Restriction of
Liberty Order (requiring the person to stay at specified
place during particular hours, usually enforced by
electronic tagging) and the Drug Treatment and Testing
Order. It was intended as an aid to rehabilitation and
sentencers can select the requirement based on the
circumstances of the case. So, in addition to unpaid work,
convicted persons can be ordered to complete a period of
intensive supervision or attend alcohol, drug or behaviour
programmes.
The Scottish government has identified the reduction of
reoffending as a priority including by increased use of
community sentences. In its 2012 strategy paper it said it
would ‘continue to deliver effective community sentencing
through the new Community Payback Order which is a
crucial alternative to
Scotland’s total budget for
custody’. The Scottish
community justice is still
Howard League welcomed
only one third that
this commitment, but
assigned to prisons,
questioned how it could be
properly funded when ‘the
according to the Howard
total budget for community
League, Scotland, who call
justice is still only one third
for ‘a greater shift in
that assigned to prisons’; it
resources from custody to
called for ‘a greater shift in
community justice’.
resources from custody to
community justice.’58
Appendix 3, section 5 presents statistical data on
community sentences of various types, in Northern Ireland
and Scotland.
Suspended sentence orders (SSOs):
how they work
The suspension can last from six months to two years. An
SSO will generally include one or more of 12 requirements
(listed above) but can be given without any requirements.
Sentencing guidance states that because of the threat of
custody embodied in the sentence, requirements should
be less onerous than those used in a community sentence:
if the court wishes to impose a more onerous requirement
consideration should be given to a community sentence
rather than an SSO.
In Northern Ireland, determinate prison sentences can
also be suspended if the court decides this is appropriate.
In such a case the defendant will not go to prison unless
convicted of a further offence within the period of
suspension.
Scotland did not introduce SSOs, in part because it
took into account evidence from England and Wales that
SSOs had replaced community sentences not custody.
England and Wales: The SSO provides a sentencing option
for cases where the crime merits custody and would normally
attract a sentence of up to two years in prison, but where in
the circumstances this sentence should not be served
immediately but instead should be suspended for a period.
For decades, courts have had discretion to suspend
sentences of less than two years where circumstances
justify it.59 SSOs were reshaped under 2003 legislation.
This saw the introduction of the high tariff community
sentence, which was intended to replace short term prison
sentences and was implemented in 2005. Supervision by
probation officers could be added as a requirement.
Unfortunately, the SSO appears to have displaced lower
tariff community based sentences, rather than been a
direct replacement for short term prison sentences.
Legislation in 2012 introduced greater flexibility for
judges to impose SSOs.60 There is an option (but no
longer a need) for SSOs to contain a community order
such as supervision, a curfew (limited to 12 months with
permitted hours up to 16 per day), or community payback.
All SSOs (and all Community Orders) must now
contain a ‘rehabilitation activity requirement’ such as
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 21
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
going to an attendance centre. The rehabilitation potential
of an SSO will usually depend on other factors, including
whether it is combined with some other requirement
targeted at the specific circumstances of the individual.
However the control element is still in place: for
example, an individual subject to a CO or an SSO (even
one without a community requirement) is required to seek
the permission of the probation officer or the court before
changing his place of residence.
A breach occurs when either another offence is
committed, or any community order requirement is not
complied with. The court must activate the original
custodial sentence unless it would be ‘unjust’ to do so.61
But whereas before, breach would result in instant
custody, or an amendment to a community requirement
(eg to increase the punitive or restrictive element) a
further option is now available – a fine of up to £2,500.
Despite official guidance62 suggesting that more onerous
conditions are more appropriate for use in COs than SSOs, it
has been argued, in analyses of how conditions within each
type of order are used, that SSOs are being used punitively.
Role of public and private sectors
More complex interactions will occur if the SSO also
includes a community order requirement, or if one is
imposed due to breach of an SSO. If so, the following will
be involved: National Probation Service (NPS),
Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), Electronic
Monitoring contractors, NOMS and other providers of
probation services. Certain mandatory actions are required
to ensure SSOs (and COs) are enforced. An NPS
‘enforcement officer’ will be required to take any case of
breach to court.63 If treatment orders are also made,
outside agencies working with people in, for example, drug
or alcohol treatment will be involved and will need to
coordinate with probation officers. The latter can then help
someone facing multiple requirements to ensure
appointments are kept and necessary support given.
Impact on prisoner numbers
One potential effect is to reduce prison numbers and save
money in comparison with prison, particularly in view of the
option of combining an SSO with a curfew order. However,
there is little evidence of any such effect in practice. Data is
limited but leads to the conclusion that SSOs have made no
significant contribution to diversion from custody or
reducing use of short custodial sentences. Rather, the data
suggests that the effect has been for SSOs and COs to
replace fines in broadly equivalent cases, and no overall
impact on the use of short sentences. NGOs, probation
staff and other public sector bodies with expertise have
argued that SSOs have not fully achieved their aims since
the current form of SSO was implemented in 2005 and have
not reduced the use of short term custody, not dealt with
up-tariffing and failed to tailor community sentence
elements of SSOs to individual need.64
We provide a range of statistics on the use of SSOs in
all three jurisdictions, in Appendix 3 (section 6).
22 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Other impacts
Other impacts may flow from specific requirements added
onto SSOs (if any). Unpaid work is a requirement that is
frequently imposed in conjunction with SSOs (around 22%
of cases in the period 2005 - 2008 and the trend to its use
was increasing).65 But it is unclear to what extent this
helps recipients of SSOs to find paid work after the
sentence has been completed: specific data is not
produced on this to any reliable scale.
Accredited programmes are sometimes added to SSOs.
These can offer the chance to take part in cognitive
behavioural work, seen by some as an effective way to
work with people convicted of an offence. But the general
trend is to make SSOs as onerous as COs, with a larger
proportion involving punitive requirements, most often
unpaid work. Over a period of four years ending 2008
research shows that in no cases where SSOs were ordered
had courts also imposed requirements of mental health
treatment programmes or attendance centre requirements.
Drug or alcohol treatment had been ordered in only a
small proportion of SSO cases. The reasons identified
included lack of availability and also lack of knowledge
and/or innovative thinking on part of probation staff and
sentencers, despite fact that officers interviewed
mentioned alcohol and mental health requirements being
the ones most needed and least available.66
In terms of family and relationships, SSOs are clearly
preferable when compared to the highly adverse impacts
of custody on relationships and a person’s the ability to
move away from law-breaking. However, to be given the
support necessary to desist and comply with any
additional sentence requirements, while also sustaining
personal relationships, a person will often require the
targeted help of a probation officer.
A 2009 report by the Centre for Crime and Justice
Studies found that
supervision was applied in
Government research
conjunction with SSOs in
shows that community
well under half of all cases
sanctions are more
and that its use decreased
effective than short
by 5% over the four years
prison
sentences in
67
to 2008.
reducing
reconvictions.
Recent government data
suggests that SSOs (and
Community Orders) are more effective than short
custodial sentences in reducing reconvictions and that
SSOs were more effective than COs. The study also
suggests that both kinds of order are more effective in
reducing reconvictions when combined with a period of
supervision.68
Structured deferred sentences:
how they work
These orders are unique to Scotland. They involve
deferring sentence for good behaviour, and are aimed at
low-tariff offenders with underlying needs. The aim is to
avoid ‘up-tariffing’ these people to probation or
community payback orders, when their needs would, in
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
the past, have been met by criminal justice social work
support now only available for higher tariff offenders. Such
orders could be a useful way of reducing unnecessary use
of prison.
The order allows courts to review progress every three
to six months of a deferment, looking at the person’s
behaviour and make any appropriate adjustments to the
order. (Such progress reviews do not feature in
Community Payback Orders.) The value of these orders is
to help deal with people who would at some point be
classed as a high risk of custody purely due to low level,
but high frequency offending, driven by their social
needs.69 These sentences are often used in conjunction
with voluntary undertaking of drug or alcohol treatment
programmes.
There are two types of SDS:
● Low tariff SDS - this is normally given when the court
believes that an offender needs a high level of support
to help deal with the problems which led to the
offending.
● High tariff SDS - offenders will be given this type of
sentence if they are at risk of receiving a prison
sentence because they have previously not attended
other community-based sentences such as supervision
or community payback. The court will also impose a
bail condition, instructing offenders to co-operate. If
they do not co-operate or miss their appointments, the
court can issue a warrant to arrest them.
Individuals will be offered support to deal with any
problems or issues which may have led to them having to
go to court. These include:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The impact of their actions on others, including victims
Drugs issues
Alcohol issues
Mental health
Education/training
Benefits and welfare rights
Anger management
Housing
Employment
Using their time in a better way.
When individuals have completed the SDS, the court
will receive a report written by CJSW staff, about how well
they co-operated and what progress has been made. The
court will use the information in this report to decide how
to deal with the case. How well the individual has cooperated is likely to affect the decision the court makes as
well as the nature and circumstances of the offence itself.
SDSs are only available in some areas in Scotland,
including the three areas where the scheme was initially
piloted, then continued following positive evaluation reviews,
plus a further two areas. The scheme was found in a majority
of cases to have had positive outcomes, with only one in 16
cases resulting in a more serious sentence outcome.70
Impact
The SDS aims to use focused supervision to tackle the
person’s criminogenic problems capable of being
addressed through social work interventions, particularly
alcohol and drug misuse. A 2013 study found that
evaluation of the SDS (including court reports) indicated
that between half and four-fifths of offenders had reduced
their alcohol and/or drug use between the date the SDS
was imposed and the end of the deferral period.71
Evaluation also suggested that non-compliance rates were
lower than those for community service or probation over
similar periods.72
Despite the positive results emerging from these
reports, since 2005–2006 (when the SDS was first
introduced) both the number of deferred sentences and
the proportion they represented of all sentences have
decreased, at least as regards male offenders. Women
have seen a greater proportion of deferred sentences.
3 Community measures post-prison
(early release)
Overview
The point during a custodial sentence when a person is
released from prison will depend mainly on the length and
type of sentence and the person’s behaviour in custody.
These factors will also influence what happens to a person
on release and whether conditions or restrictions will be
imposed, including any period of curfew, tagging or
probation.
In England and Wales, recent changes to sentencing
law73 have created two major changes relating to the
period immediately after release. These changes relate to
compulsory periods of supervision (for those sentenced to
less than two years) and to restrictions on automatic early
release rules part way through a term of imprisonment.
‘Extended sentences’ (introduced in December 2012)
include a custodial part and a licence part. The custodial
part is designed mainly to punish. The licence part is
designed to deal with risk posed by the individual. The
court can impose extended sentences where it finds that
the person is ‘dangerous’ and poses ‘a significant risk of
serious harm to members of the public’. Until 2014 most
prisoners serving extended sentences were automatically
released at the 2/3 point without consideration by the
Parole Board. Once released they served the remainder of
the custodial period on licence, and then the extended
licence on top of that. Only a minority of those serving
such sentences were not eligible for automatic release and
instead had their cases considered by the Parole Board.
Recent legislation ended the system of automatic early
release.74 Now all prisoners serving an extended sentence
of any length, irrespective of whether they have a previous
conviction for a relevant offence, have to go before the
Parole Board. If release is not granted, the person will be
released at the expiry of the custodial term. Under the
previous form of extended sentences introduced with 2003
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 23
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
legislation, automatic release was granted at the half-way
point of a sentence. The result of these changes is that in
3 years, receiving an extended sentence will for many
prisoners double the time they serve, resulting in more
pressure on prison places, and on the workload of Parole
Boards.
If a person is released
early
from prison they will
Purposes of release
be subject to a licence,
on licence:
setting out conditions they
• To protect the public
must adhere to because
• To prevent re-offending their sentence is still
• To promote successful ongoing but they are
re-integration into the
serving the rest of it in the
community.
community and not in
prison. Anyone on home
detention curfew will be on
licence. If the conditions are broken the person may be
recalled to prison. A person on licence will have to attend
regular meetings with a probation officer. There may also be
certain other conditions imposed.
In England and Wales, licence conditions are set by
prison governors, with any additional conditions being
selected from an approved list and recommended by
probation. Standard conditions set for all prisoners include
requirements to keep in touch with and receive visits from
the designated probation officer, permanently live at an
address approved by the probation officer, not travel
without permission, not commit an offence, be of good
behaviour and ‘not behave in a way which undermines the
purposes of the release on licence, which are to protect the
public, prevent re-offending and promote successful reintegration into the community’.
For life-sentenced prisoners, licence conditions are set by
the Parole Board. A life licence remains in force - and
individuals remain liable to recall - for the rest of their life,
but subjects can apply to the Justice Secretary (through a
request to probation) and argue that the conditions are no
longer necessary and should be cancelled. The supervision
element of a life licence normally remains in force for
around 4 years (up to 10 years for people convicted of
sexual offences), and can remain in force for longer or
shorter periods depending on the case. The Justice
Secretary will normally refer the case to the Parole Board
before cancelling the supervision requirements.75
The recall of prisoners to prison due to breach of licence
or other release conditions has been identified as a major
contributing factor in prison population growth. In the latest
government prison population projections (for 2014-2020)76
it is acknowledged that the imposition of automatic postrelease supervision for anyone sentenced to less than two
years would likely impact on prison numbers. The analysis
states that breaches of these licence or supervision periods
could result in the person being recalled or committed to
custody, impacting on the prison population. The estimated
impact is higher levels of growth in projected recall
numbers than in previous projections published prior to the
legislation introducing the automatic supervision period.
24 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
In Northern Ireland, too, this has been identified as
contributing to rising numbers. The Owers report on
Northern Ireland’s prison system recommended that
recall only be used to address risk or non-compliance
and only for the shortest time necessary. It also criticised
the inadequacy of data in Northern Ireland on length of
time spent in custody by those recalled or the numbers
of people recalled. It recommended better data in respect
of both.
The key measures in brief
There are three measures of importance in the UK:
parole, home detention curfew with electronic
monitoring, and post-release probation supervision.
These measures are not simply considered ‘alternatives’
to the continuation of custody. They also reflect policy
goals regarding resettlement practice, public protection
and controlling the risk of reoffending.
Statistical data on all three measures’ use across the
UK are provided in Appendix 3 (section 7).
Parole
The possibility of seeking parole is open to the majority
of sentenced prisoners in the UK at a certain point
during their sentence. The purpose is for a decision to be
taken about whether a prisoner should be released from
prison (or moved to open conditions) to help prepare the
prisoner for eventual return to the community after
serving the prison sentence. The parole process involves
an assessment of the risks of releasing the prisoner. It
therefore requires consideration of the interests of
victims and the wider public as well as those of the
prisoner. If conducted properly, the parole hearing gives a
prisoner an opportunity to be involved in decision
making process about his future after prison.
Home Detention Curfew and electronic monitoring
Eligible prisoners may be released from prison early on
condition they wear an electronic tag, usually on the
ankle. Includes a curfew condition that requires those
subject to it to remain at a particular place for a set
period each day (usually for 12 hours). This is called
Home Detention Curfew in England and Wales and was
introduced in 1999 (England and Wales) and 2006
(Scotland). In Northern Ireland, electronic monitoring
has also been introduced as a condition of licences for
the release of prisoners undergoing post-prison
supervision or subject to a curfew.
Probation supervision
Whereas the above two measures involve some
discretion in the decision-making process, there are also
sentences entailing automatic periods of compulsory
post-release supervision. Probation is an automatic
consequence of sentence length (England and Wales –
two years or less), or sentence type (Northern Ireland, in
cases where a determinate custodial sentence was
ordered).
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
People under post-release
supervision in England
and Wales
2002 – 22,000
2014 – 39,270
See Appendix 3, section 7 (iii)
From 2015, a further
50,000 people will be
under post-release
supervision, due to the
new mandatory
requirement for all serving
up to two year sentences.
Probation after release
can also be selected on a
discretionary basis as one
of the licence conditions
set.
The UK has seen a rapid
growth in the number of
people are subject to postrelease probation since
2000. This is likely to
continue, due to recent
extensions of probation
requirements for shortterm prisoners.
We now deal with the
measures in detail.
Parole: how it works
The aim of the parole process is to decide whether a
prisoner should be released (or moved to open
conditions) and to help prepare the prisoner for this. It
requires consideration of the public interest as well as
those of the prisoner; and to a limited extent, the interests
of victims. The process involves an assessment of the
risks of releasing the prisoner, which is carried out by a
public sector body that acts independently of the prison
estate and judicial system.
The decision is taken either at an oral hearing, at which
the prisoner can make representations or, in some cases,
on the basis of a hearing ‘on paper’, based on written
statements and representations which the prisoner is
entitled to see and comment on prior to the decision.
Parole decisions require consideration of the interests of
victims and the wider public, as well as those of the
prisoner. Parole Boards operate differently in each
jurisdiction: we describe the system in England and
Wales, first.
The rules are set out in subsidiary legislation.77
Prisoners eligible for parole are those who have an
extended sentence, or a fixed-term sentence:
Supreme Court recently held that, for fairness reasons,
they will generally be needed.78 Therefore, paper
adjudications by a single Parole Board member will now
be far fewer. Reliance on paper hearings had grown when
the Board’s workload increased dramatically due to
introduction of indeterminate sentences for public
protection (now abolished) and a new rule that licence
breach cases had to be dealt with by the Parole Board.
There will now be a hearing if the Board considers,
based on the file it receives, that there is a realistic
prospect of success, or if oral evidence is required from
the prisoner. At the hearing up to three members of a
panel will decide the application, based on evidence from
the prison on:
● Offender’s behaviour in prison
● Future plans once released
● Whether offender likely to commit more crime or is a
danger to the public
● This offence and any previous offences
● What the judge said when sentencing
● The statement of any victims
● Medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence.
There are frequently
Strangeways,
delays beyond the six
here
we come?
month limit. Prisoners
‘If you have more people
sometimes succeed in
claiming compensation for
in prison who simply do
delay. A former chairman of
not know when they are
the Parole Board has called
going to be released,
for more funding, warning
then you’ve got the risk
of potential prison
of disaffection.’
disturbances (and recalling
Sir David Latham, former
the events at Strangeways
chairman of Parole Board
prison in 1990) if action is
not taken to resource
effectively for rising caseloads.79
Unsuccessful applicants can apply for a judicial review
of refusal of parole where:
● of 4 years or more, or
● passed for a serious violent or sexual crime committed
before 4 April 2005.
● Important information was not given to the Parole
Board, or
● The application was not dealt with appropriately, eg the
decision was manifestly unreasonable.
No one sentenced to less than four years can apply for
parole. If the person is serving life imprisonment, or an
indeterminate sentence, the Justice Secretary applies for
parole on their behalf.
Prisoners can apply up to six months before their
earliest release date. After an application form is
submitted the hearing should take place no longer than six
months later. Delays are frequent, in practice: see below.
Hearings are held in prisons and are not open to the
public. Decisions are sent to the prisoner in writing and
are not public documents. Oral hearings never used to be
held and even today are not held in all cases. But the
Victims are allowed to attend to make statements but
not to remain for the whole hearing. Their evidence might
be needed if a release is to be made conditional on, eg the
offender not going to an area where they live. Victims are
informed when any release conditions they have requested
are not applied by the Board.
There have been complaints by victims that their views
are not given due regard at the parole stage. In response
the Parole Board has pointed to the limited relevant
information victims would have about the matters the
Board must consider, which concern the prisoner’s
progress during sentence as evidenced by for example,
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 25
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
psychologists’ evidence, probation and prison officers’
reports. Victim statements are not likely to contribute to
the objective risk assessment required.
If conducted properly, the parole hearing gives a
prisoner an opportunity to be involved in decision making
process about his future after prison as well as on the
imposition of licence conditions which could restrict
various freedoms. A fair process requires all the necessary
information to be available to the decision-making panel,
and to be properly tested by those wishing to challenge
that information.
Justice requires that
people whose interests are
Legal aid cuts have
affected by an official
severely compromised
decision have a fair
prisoners’ ability to
opportunity to contribute
challenge unreasonable
to and influence the
parole decisions or take
decision process.80 Legal
action over serious delays
representation is a key part
of this. However, following
austerity cuts, legal aid
funding is now only available if the prisoner is being
considered for release from a life sentence. For all other
prisoners, no legal aid is offered. This means many
prisoners’ ability to challenge unreasonable parole
decisions or take action over serious delays will be severely
compromised.
Control or rehabilitation?
Parole decisions are aimed at risk control. Rehabilitation
could in some cases be helped by a supervision
requirement or some other targeted support to resettle the
person being contained in the licence assuming this is
properly resourced and delivered.
Role of public and the private sectors
There has traditionally been no private sector involvement in
Parole Board decisions. Ensuring that prisoners’ applications
for parole are properly dealt with involves co-operation
between the Prison Service, the Parole Board, probation and
the police. The NPS is responsible for preparing all Parole
Board reports on behalf of the probation service, and for
victim liaison. Assistance is also needed from the MOJ (for
analytical and similar input) and NOMS (managers will
usually be important witnesses at parole hearings).
Following the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms in
England and Wales, private providers will also have a role
in supporting the through-care and post-release
supervision of some prisoners. They will have to liaise
effectively with the Parole Board and the NPS. Good
collaboration and information-sharing will be needed
between the NPS and the CRCs. In addition, the workloads
of NPS offender managers must be kept under control,
otherwise practitioners have warned it will be impossible
to create the necessary level of engagement with the
individual prior to the hearing. If there are staff shortages
or funding cuts to the NPS this will result in delayed
hearings when reports are not ready.
26 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Evidence to a Parliamentary Committee observed that,
for the reforms to succeed, the Parole Board would need
to focus on the more serious offenders, such as those
being released on parole following a life or indeterminate
sentence. The less serious offenders could be left to the
contracted-out sector.81
Funding
The Parole Board in England and Wales has suffered
budget cuts and staffing reductions. The overall number of
salaried staff had gone down from roughly 100 to around
82. There has been no decrease in the number of staff on
the casework support side, the cuts having been made to
middle management. Members are paid for oral hearings
they sit in, and these are the most expensive part of the
parole service. Oral hearings have increased in number as
a result of recent Supreme Court decisions discussed
above which trebled the number of anticipated oral
hearings, raising operating costs by at least £10 million,
according to Parole Board estimates.82 A further
consequence has been an increase in the backlog of cases
awaiting decision which exceeded 1,000 at the end of 2013.
Another ongoing pressure on the Board’s caseload is
the change to how breaches of licence by released
prisoners are dealt with. Now, the Board is responsible for
recalled prisoners, who will often be required to attend a
Board hearing after a breach while on licence, even in
cases where the original offence was not serious. In all
such cases the Board must decide whether the person
should be released again.
Impact on prisoner numbers
The number of prisoners granted parole in any year will
have a corresponding impact in reducing numbers.
However, the number of prisoners eligible to apply for
parole has seen a steady increase over recent years and, as
stated, there is a backlog of delayed cases. This reduces
the downward impact on prison numbers that a fully
functional parole system could have.
Those recalled for breach of licence are also now dealt
with by the Parole Board. For all those where a decision is
taken to return them to custody, there will be a
corresponding increase in the prison population.
Wider impacts
At best, the parole process can be seen as a key part of
overall sentence planning for prisoners and those supporting
them. The decision must look into whether the prisoner has
worked towards ‘addressing his/her offending behaviour’. A
common ground for parole refusal is that the board
considers the prisoner has failed to do so. However, this
process will be hampered from the start if the sentence plan
does not include work to help the prisoner do this: for
example, through counselling, courses, and work experience.
With resources, staff levels and funds being cut year after
year while prisoner numbers increase, it is questionable how
fair the parole process can be, and what positive impact the
process will have on prisoners’ future lives in the
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
community. When resources are cut and workloads increase,
the focus inevitably shifts to risk control.
The positive impacts of the parole system would be
maximised if the parole application process itself worked
more efficiently, with the appropriate staffing levels and all
available support offered to the prisoner to ensure the
procedure was understood.
Home Detention Curfew (HDC)
This measure is provided by primary legislation
accompanied by rules in secondary legislation (known as
Prison Service Orders). Since its introduction, HDC use
has grown steadily.
In England and Wales applications are decided by the
Prison Service and authorisation is given by prison
governors (or in private prisons, by the prison controller)
under authority delegated by the Justice Secretary. All
eligible prisoners must be assessed for HDC whether they
apply for it or not.
In Scotland, potentially eligible prisoners must apply for
HDC. Otherwise, the approach is generally similar to
England and Wales. CJSW can assist the decision by
providing information and support about, for example,
accommodation availability.
The information below covers the two jurisdictions, but
when there are significant differences between the two,
these are pointed out.
How it works
HDC allows prisoners serving sentences between three
months and four years to be released early on licence into
the community, while wearing an electronic tag (usually on
the ankle). In Scotland prisoners serving over four years
and granted parole are also eligible for a HDC for the
period between parole being granted and their parole
qualifying date.
HDC has a curfew condition requiring prisoners to
remain at a particular place for a set period each day.
Guidance states that the normal period should be 12
hours, though requests can be made to shorten the
period, for example, for employment or caring obligations.
Curfews can never be less than nine hours. Breach of the
curfew or other licence conditions or being charged with a
further offence may result in recall.
Prisoners convicted of certain offences are excluded
(sex offences and some violent offences) as are those
liable to deportation on release. Others are presumed
unsuitable unless there are exceptional circumstances
(examples include those convicted of terrorism offences or
homicide). To be eligible, prisoners must:
● Pass a risk assessment (decision made by prison staff,
includes a report by probation.83 This report may
include third party comments, for example, from people
at the proposed address or from the victim).
● Have suitable accommodation approved by the
probation service.
● Meet other criteria aimed at public protection and
preventing reoffending.
Other conditions can be included in the licence on a
case-by-case basis.
Time spent on HDC varies according to original prison
sentence length, from a minimum of 14 days. The
maximum length of time has been extended several times
since its introduction. The current maximum in England
and Wales is 135 days; and in Scotland it is six months. In
England and Wales the average amount of time spent on
HDC was 2.8 months, in the quarter ending December
2013.
Control or rehabilitation?
The official purpose is to ‘manage more effectively the
transition of prisoners from custody back into the
community’.84 HDC is intended to support a prisoner’s
transition out of prison by controlled access to the
community. It gives the person a period of conditional
liberty with a lesser set of constraints than those entailed
by incarceration. It can prepare prisoners for full freedom
by creating opportunities to respond ‘responsibly’ by
getting to the end of the release period without breaching
the constraints, ‘testing prisoners in conditions that afford
them increased freedom is a valuable means of helping exprisoners reintegrate with their families and
communities’.85 The aim is to promote rehabilitation and
resettlement while offering a measure of public protection.
It is not the officially stated purpose of the scheme to
reduce prison numbers or prison sentence lengths.
Despite the measure’s potential to reduce pressure on
prisons at a time of overcrowding and constrained
resources, there is political sensitivity about connecting
early release schemes to their impact on prison numbers.
To illustrate this, the Sentencing Commission in Scotland,
when reviewing early release schemes, were asked not to
look at the impact on prison numbers of these schemes or
reforms to them.
In short, HDC is essentially aimed at control, extending
a form of surveillance and restriction of liberty, outside the
prison walls. The notional goal of helping towards
reintegration is questionable given the fairly short duration
of the measure, particularly if limited support services are
available.
Roles of public and private sectors
HDC involves collaboration between the following
agencies.
Prison Service: Makes decision to grant HDC and
responsible for recall to prison in cases of breach. In
Scotland initial risk assessment carried out by prison
service.
Probation: Compiles report accessing suitability of the
proposed accommodation prior to HDC being granted and
assessment of available information about prisoner. In
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 27
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
England and Wales: Responsible for monitoring any noncurfew licence conditions (e.g. subject to supervision). In
Scotland: If there are any nonstandard conditions that
require monitoring, CJSW or police are expected to do this,
although they have no statutory obligation to do so.
Police: They are notified of HDC releases. If they arrest or
caution someone subject to HDC, they are expected to
inform the prison service.
Private contractors: The provision and monitoring of
electronic tags is contracted out to the private sector in all
three jurisdictions. In England and Wales, Capita currently
provides electronic monitoring. The legitimacy of measures
dependent on electronic monitoring has also been
threatened by disputed charging practices. G4S and Serco
previously supplied these services but withdrew from the
2013 bidding process whilst facing a Serious Fraud Office
investigation about over-charging. In Scotland, Serco has a
five year contract entered into in 2013, worth £13 million. If
the curfew is broken the police and probation services are
sent an ‘alert’ by the private provider.
Funding
It costs an estimated
£1,300 to monitor
someone on HDC for 90
days, compared to £6,500
for a similar period in
custody.86 However, as only
those judged less ‘risky’ are
eligible, this group is most
likely to include those for
whom prison is least appropriate. So it may be more
useful to compare the cost of prison and HDC to a similar
period of time spent on a community sentence. In a 2012
report87 the current system was criticised as insufficiently
competitive, as a small group of private companies
controlled the market and NOMS were failing to harness
sufficient innovation or reform in the technology or the
involvement of probation and police. The budget for HDC
is provided by the Ministry of Justice through NOMS.
What it costs
To monitor someone on
home detention curfew
for 90 days: £1,300
To jail someone for
90 days: £6,500
Impact on prisoner numbers
England and Wales: Without HDC it is clear that, other
things being equal, prison overcrowding would be an even
more serious problem than it is today. The Ministry of Justice
has acknowledged this in official reports on the period since
2005, linking under-use with rises in prisoner numbers and
increased use with falls in the amount of time served.
In terms of reconviction rates, the effects are less clear.
A recent study88 showed that people on HDC were no
more likely to engage in criminal behaviour when released
than those with similar characteristics who were not
eligible for early release on HDC. Another study suggested
that HDC can have a positive effect on reducing
reoffending, but only when combined with other forms of
support and monitoring.89
28 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Scotland: Research with prison staff and CJSW found that
most considered the main purpose of HDC to be the
management of prison populations. This was reinforced by
figures showing that it is the most crowded prisons that
make the most use of HDC.90
However, there are concerns that HDC (and early
release more generally) is not well explained in the public
domain and risks being seen as a way to manage prison
populations without due consideration for public safety.
This situation risks increasing the level of public cynicism
about this kind of measure being too lenient compared to
a longer time in prison.
Wider impacts
People on HDC are free to work during normal working
hours and, in that sense, its benefits outweigh the
disadvantages of remaining in prison and unable to work
or look for work. If an offer of employment conflicts with
the hours of the curfew, the individual should explain this
to probation services in order to seek a revision to the
terms of the licence. In practice, this could be difficult to
bring about quickly, and some people on curfew may be
restricted to applying only for work that can be done
outside their curfew hours. For those with childcare or
other caring responsibilities to fulfil, this would be a
further factor making the curfew difficult to meet while
simultaneously working during normal hours.
There is some evidence that families can find 12-hour
curfews stressful but HDC is usually strongly supported by
families as it enables their relative to get out of prison.91 It
has been suggested that one reason why women’s
compliance rates are lower than men’s may be that
women sometimes have no option but to break the curfew
due to caring responsibilities, particularly when they are
single parents.92
Relationships and family life are generally considered
better under an HDC than when someone is in prison
(assuming they do not themselves present a threat or risk
to family members). However, the inflexible way HDC can
be applied has been criticised. This relates to the
insensitivity of the equipment given that a tag-wearer can
cause an alert simply by putting out a rubbish bin outside
during curfew hours. It is important that sparing use is
made of HDCs and that innocent breaches like this are not
capable of triggering costly or disproportionate
consequences.
Questions have been raised about the suitability of
ankle tags for women, as these would potentially be more
noticeable than for men and may ‘heighten stigma and
embarrassment’.93 Some people are more likely to find it
difficult to occupy themselves and use time effectively
whilst under curfew, which can increase family and
relationship stress and lead to boredom and depression.
Post-release probation
Supervision after a person’s release from prison has
traditionally formed a significant part of probation’s work
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
in all the UK systems. The main elements of probation for
all three UK jurisdictions will be covered in Appendix 2
(Probation systems in the UK). Below, we explain aspects
of the UK systems that are specific to supervision after
release from prison and not covered later. First, some key
differences between the three jurisdictions.
England and Wales: A key feature of the recent
restructuring of probation (under ‘Transforming
Rehabilitation’) is the extension of compulsory postrelease supervision to a larger number of short-sentenced
prisoners.
Northern Ireland: The Determinate Custodial Sentence is
unique to NI and requires an offender to serve a fixed
period of imprisonment followed by a fixed period of
supervision in the community. The sentencing court will
specify the length of each part of the sentence.
Scotland: As part of their legal duty to promote social
welfare and community safety, criminal justice social work
offer supervision for prisoners returning to the community
subject to licence and conditions. They also contribute to
risk assessment and planning for high risk offenders under
multi-agency public protection (MAPPA) arrangements
discussed in Appendix 2.
CJSW services have a legal duty to provide assistance to
persons released from prison and their families on
request, following a short-term sentence (up to four
years). They are also required to provide compulsory
supervision for long-term prisoners (sentences of more
than four years) who are subject to statutory supervision,
including where supervision is a condition of parole. In
addition, large national voluntary agencies94 provide a
range of personal assistance and family support. Unique
to Scotland, a lifetime supervision order (Order of Lifelong
Restriction) is available to the Court when sentencing.
The Howard League, Scotland, has called for improved
transitional support for all short-term prisoners on release,
arguing that every prisoner who requires it should be met
at the gate by a support worker or volunteer known to
them, and that this person should continue to support the
individual as long as is necessary for them to become able
to maintain a tenancy.95
Control or rehabilitation?
Recent years have seen a shift of emphasis in how the
work of post-release probation is delivered, away from
traditional rehabilitation and resettlement support,
towards risk management, crime prevention and
safeguarding.
Though presented as reforms that would improve
rehabilitation outcomes for larger numbers of offenders, it
is too early to say whether the restructuring of probation
will in fact do this. In March 2015, the House of Commons
Justice Select Committee warned that the level of pressure
that prisons are currently working under risked
undermining the positive impact of the ‘through-the-gate’
and post-release probation support envisaged under the
Transforming Rehabilitation programme. The increase in
overcrowding prisons had, in their view, undermined
constructive regimes designed to encourage rehabilitation
and had actually limited the opportunities to reduce
reoffending.
Roles of public and private sectors
Probation remains a public service in Scotland (carried out
by Criminal Justice Social Work) and Northern Ireland. But
in England and Wales probation is split between the public
and private sectors, as we describe in more detail in the
next section.
In England and Wales, the task of delivering the
additional caseload of post-release supervision (now that
this is compulsory for anyone sentenced to less than two
years) will fall mainly to the new private Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). It will therefore be
planned and managed by the private sector, in
collaboration with voluntary, statutory and other bodies.
The public sector body responsible for higher risk cases,
known as the National Probation Service, will also be
closely involved as will police and courts. We describe the
way probation works in the UK in Appendix 2.
Funding
There will be around
50,000 extra cases for
probation to supervise in
England and Wales as a
The number of extra cases
result of the extension of
for probation to supervise,
compulsory post-release
following changes under
probation, but no extra
Transforming
funding from government
Rehabilitation
in
to pay for it. Payments to
2014 – 2015
the CRCs for the cases
they supervise will be
geared to ‘results’ based
The extra government
largely on whether the
funding to pay for this
person has been
convicted again within a
year from release.
The government stated that the only way it can afford to
introduce the additional supervision for short-sentenced
prisoners is to introduce private sector delivery
incentivised through payment by results.
Only time will tell whether the necessary savings will be
generated. The risks are that the quality of supervision will
be reduced, reconviction rates will not be cut, and orders
will be breached resulting in greater workloads for CRCs,
the NPS (which has responsibility for enforcing orders),
courts, police and prisons. These adverse consequences
could carry heavy costs which could exceed savings
achieved by privatisation.
50,000
£0.00
Impact on prisoner numbers
It is too early to know what impacts on prison numbers
the additional compulsory supervision requirement will
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 29
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
have but one potential adverse effect would arise if large
increases in breach numbers led to further pressure on the
prison population. The new laws on compulsory postrelease supervision for anyone sentenced to two years or
less set out the potential effects of breach. There are four
sanctions for magistrates to choose from. These are: fines,
unpaid work, an electronically monitored curfew and
prison for up to two weeks. Even if prison is not used the
first time, if one of the other sanctions is applied but
breached, prison would be more likely the next time.
Wider impacts
For post-release probation to have positive wider impacts
this will likely be as a result of productive and effective
relationships, support and programmes being offered to
ex-prisoners during their compulsory period of postrelease probation. In Appendix 2, on probation practice,
we describe the potential positive impacts which targeted,
professional and well-resourced probation support can
have. We also describe its limitations when those released
from prison continue to face multiple disadvantages and
the additional stigma of having a conviction and having
served time in prison.
The main justification for the recent restructuring of
probation in England and Wales was the high reconviction
rates of short-sentenced prisoners, and the fact that
supervision after release was not provided for such
prisoners but only for those seen as presenting a higher
risk. However, there is no evidence yet that extending
supervision on a compulsory basis to cover anyone
sentenced to two years or less would have any specific
impact on reconviction rates.
30 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Notes
1 Daily Express, ‘EXCLUSIVE: 94,000 cases of rape and murder are
committed by suspects freed on bail’ (Giannangeli M) 20 October
2013. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437944/EXCLUSIVE-94-000
-cases-of-rape-and-murder-are-committed-by-suspects-freed-on-bail.
2 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
(LASPO).
3 BBC News UK (Harmes L) Law Society calls for 28 day limit on police
bail, May 2013. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22624648.
4 Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service (cited above).
5 Northern Ireland Law Commission, Report on Bail in Criminal
Proceedings, 2012.
6 Brown K, Duff P, Leverick F, A preliminary analysis of the bail/custody
decision in relation to female accused, 2004, Scottish govt.
7 They key sentencing guideline in this context is Seriousness (2004),
which contains guidance on whether a custodial sentence or a
community sentence is merited, or whether a fine or discharge would
be more appropriate. For discussion of the role of Sentencing Council
and arguments for its greater involvement in strengthening guidance
for custody decisions relating to women, see Gerry F, Harris L,
Women in Prison: is the penal system fit for purpose? (pp 43ff),
Halsbury’s Law Exchange. October 2014.
8 See section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA), for England
and Wales. This does not apply to offences where the sentence is
fixed by law.
9 CJA S152.
10 CJA s 143.
11 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
12 These calls are usefully summarised in A presumption against
imprisonment: social order and social values, the British Academy,
July 2014.
13 Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson, Review of efficiency in criminal
proceedings, January 2015. www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2015/01/review-of-efficiency-in-criminal-proceedings
-20151.pdf.
14 Matrix, The case for and against prison, 2008; Scotland’s Choice,
Report of Scottish Prison Commission, July 2008; National Audit
Office, Managing offenders on short custodial sentences, 2010;
Prison Reform Trust, Bromley fact file, 2011; and Make Justice Work
network, Community or custody? Which works best? A national
enquiry, 2011. www.makejusticework.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/
National-Enquiry-Final-Report-14th-Sept-1.pdf.
15 Ministry of Justice, Story of the prison population: 1995 – 2009,
England and Wales: statistics bulletin and datasets.
16 The requirement of seriousness is set out in the guideline issued by
the (then) Sentencing Guidelines Council, New Sentences: Criminal
Justice Act 2003. Community sentences in England and Wales are
governed by s 177 CJA 2003 but important changes took effect in
April 2013 under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, including
strengthening the punitive element and which had the effect of
reducing the scope of fines as an alternative. This is despite other
legislation to give magistrates wider fining powers and removing
limits on the amount of fines imposed for the most serious offences
tried in magistrates’ courts (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of
Offenders Act 2012).
17 Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
18 Information on Community Payback on Serco’s website:
http://www.serco.com/markets/homeaffairs/communityservices/
communitypayback.asp?utm_source=Community%20Payback
&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=redirect.
19 For example, the Greater Manchester and Cheshire CRC offers this.
20 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
21 Baroness Jean Corston, report of a Review of Women with Particular
Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System, Home Office, 2007.
22 For example, Greater Manchester and Cheshire CRC. Information in
The Spark, Feb 2015 issue GMCCRC’s magazine for probation and
legal practitioners. cgm-probation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/
04/The-Spark-February-2015-final.pdf.
23 This has been recognised in recent articles such as Raynor P and
Robinson G, ‘Why Help Offenders? Arguments for Rehabilitation as a
Penal Strategy’ (2009) European Journal of Probation. 1(1):3-20.
www.ejprob.ro/uploads_ro/677/PRGR.pdf.
24 See for example, McWilliams W and Pease K, ‘Probation practice and
an end to punishment’ (1990), Howard Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol 29(1): 14-24.
25 For example, the London Probation Trust’s Bench Guide to
Community Sentences, Sept 2011, based on Sentencing Guidelines
Council’s Seriousness guideline (but pre-dating the recent changes
of law under the Transforming Rehabilitation programme): available
at www.insidetime.org/resources/Probation/Bench-Guide-to
-Community-Sentencers_Sept2011_LPT.pdf.
26 Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Community Order and the
Suspended Sentence Order Three Years On: The views and
experiences of probation officers and offenders, March 2009.
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/
Three_years_on.pdf.
27 Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson, Review of efficiency in criminal
proceedings, (January 2015).
28 NOMS annual report 2013-14, management information addendum.
Ministry of Justice, July 2014.
29 Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and
Sentencing of Offenders, Ministry of Justice (2010) Green Paper
Evidence Report.
30 Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, The Community Order and the
Suspended Sentence Order Three Years On: The views and
experiences of probation officers and offenders, March 2009.
31 LASPO 2012.
32 Gerry F, Harris L, Women in Prison: is the penal system fit for
purpose? (sections 11 and 12) Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 2014.
33 National Audit Report: Funding of Women’s Centres in the
Community, 2013.
34 NOMS annual report (cited above).
35 London Community Rehabilitation Company website.
36 NOMS, ‘Community payback high visibility tabards’, PI 12/2014.
37 The Government publishes data on prison populations by nationality.
38 As is made clear in, for example, Banks J ‘Foreign National Prisoners
in the UK: Explanations and Implications’, (2011) Howard Journal
50(2): pp 184 – 198.
39 Canton R, Hammond N, ‘Foreigners to Justice? Irregular migrants
and foreign national offenders in England & Wales’. European Journal
of Probation, Vol. 4, No 3, 2012, p 12, referring to data gathered by
London Probation Trust, which had a high proportion of non-national
offenders.
40 ‘Foreigners to Justice?’ cited above, p 13.
41 NOMS, ‘Permanent resettlement outside England and Wales of
offenders subject to post-release supervision’ PSI 08/2015; PI
07/2015.
42 Website of Detention Advice Service (DAS), an organisation providing
immigration advice, information and support to those detained, or
threatened with detention, under immigration powers.
43 Article on BID website: www.biduk.org/842/news/totally-ignored
-foreign-national-offenders-and-the-introduction-of-a-payment
-by-results-system-for-rehabilitation-work.html.
44 For example, under the service level agreement between the NPS
and NOMS, para 3.1.5.
45 F Gerry, L Harris, Women in Prison: is the penal system fit for
purpose? (p 43ff) (cited above).
46 Full details are on the Clinks website. www.clinks.org/directory/
28643.
47 Available here: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/177038/strategic-objectives-female
-offenders.pdf.
48 Reducing Offending Among Women, 2013-2016, DOJNI 2013.
www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publications/publication-categories/
pubs-policing-community-safety/community-safety/reducing
-offending/reducing-offending-among-women-2013-2016.pdf.
49 Scottish Government’s Response to the Commission on Women
Offenders, June 2012, www.gov.scot/Resource/0039/00395683.pdf.
50 Victim Impact Statements, NIAR 952-11, here: www.niassembly.gov.uk/
Documents/RaISe/Publications/2012/justice/2012.pdf.
51 Victim Contact Scheme Guidance, PI 11/2013.
52 PBNI Victims Policy, approved 2011, here www.pbni.org.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Victims-Policy-1-0-2011-23.05.11.pdf
53 The Criminal Justice (NI) Order.
54 Crime and Courts Act 2014.
55 W Wood, ‘Why restorative justice will not reduce incarceration’,
Br J Criminol (2015). For a different view see G Daniels, ‘Restorative
justice: changing the paradigm’, 2013, Probation Journal vol 60
no. 3 302-315.
56 An inspection of community supervision by the Probation Board of
Northern Ireland, May 2013, paras 4.5-4.8.
57 Owers report (cited above), p 29.
58 Website of Scottish Howard League; News, November 2014.
www.howardleaguescotland.org.uk/news/2014/november/scottish
-government%E2%80%99s-draft-budget-2015-16.
59 Under section 22 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973; the
exceptional circumstances test remained until CJA 2003 removed it.
60 LASPO 2012.
61 Breach leads to various enforcement requirements set out in
schedule 12 CJA 2003 (sched 8 for breach of community orders).
62 Sentencing Guidelines Council cited above, and a Home Office
Probation Circular 25/2005.
63 See PI 06/2014, ‘Enforcement of Community Orders and Suspended
Sentence Orders’ issued 1 April 2014.
64 See for example, ‘The Community Order and Suspended Sentence
Order Three Years On’ (CCJS 2009, cited above).
65 CCJS 2009 (above).
66 CCJS 2009 (above).
67 Report by CCJS, 2009 (cited above).
68 The impact of short custodial sentences, community sentences and
suspended sentence orders on re-offending, MOJ, January 2015.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 31
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
69 Armstrong S, McIvor G, McNeill F and McGuinness P, International
evidence review of conditional (suspended) sentences, 2013,
Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
70 Annual report of Northern Community Justice Authority 2008-2009.
71 Malloch M, McIvor G, ‘Criminal justice responses to drug related
crime in Scotland’, International Journal of Drug Policy: 2013,
24 pp 69-77.
72 Evaluation of Structured Deferred Sentence pilots, Justice Analytical
Services, Scottish Government, Research Findings No. 11/2008.
73 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015; and Offender Rehabilitation
Act 2014.
74 Crime and Courts Act 2013.
75 More detailed information can be found here: NOMS, Probation
Instruction, Licence Conditions, PI 2011/7.
76 Prison Population Projections 2014 – 2020 England and Wales,
MOJ Statistics Bulletin, November 2014.
77 In England and Wales, the Parole Board Rules 2011 (SI 2011/2947).
78 Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61.
79 BBC News, Warning over prison release delay, 14 May 2012.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18051500.
80 As confirmed in the Supreme Court decision in Osborn (cited above).
81 Oral evidence to Justice Select Committee about Parole Board,
December 2013. data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committee
evidence.svc/evidencedocument/justice-committee/the-work-of-the
-parole-board/oral/4733.html.
82 BBC News online, 12 July 2014, ‘Parole hearings ‘to treble’ after
‘fairness’ ruling’. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28272742.
83 In this section ‘probation’ refers to the probation arrangements in
England and Wales and the equivalent criminal justice social work
services in Scotland.
84 Home Office Guidance, referring to Prison Service Order 6700, Home
Detention Curfew.
32 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
85 Spencer A, Balancing Risk and Need, Review of the decision to send
Brian Martin to open conditions in the light of his subsequent
absconding from the Open Estate on 18 May 2009 and issues
highlighted as a consequence (2009), Scottish Government.
86 National Audit Office, The electronic monitoring of adult offenders,
2006.
87 Policy Exchange, The future of corrections, September 2012.
88 Marie O, Moreton K and Goncalves M, The effect of home detention
curfew on recidivism (2011), Research Summary 1/11, Ministry of
Justice.
89 Marklund F and Holmberg S, ‘Effects of early release from prison
using electronic tagging in Sweden’ (2009) Journal of Experimental
Criminology, vol. 5: 41-61.
90 Armstrong S, Malloch M, Nellis M, Norris P, Evaluating Home
Detention Curfew and Open Prison in Scotland, Scottish Govt Social
Research, 2011.
91 Evaluating Home Detention Curfew and Open Prison in Scotland
(cited above).
92 Holdsworth E, Hucklesby A, ‘Designed for men, but also worn by
women’, Criminal Justice Matters, Vol 95 (1) 2014. See also
research to be published in 2016 under European Commission
Action Project (JUST/2013/JPEN/AG) ‘Creativity and Effectiveness in
the Use of Electronic Monitoring as an Alternative to Imprisonment in
EU Member States’. The project is managed and coordinated at the
Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds, by Professor
A Hucklesby and involves partners from five EU jurisdictions including
England and Wales.
93 ‘Designed for men, but also worn by women’, cited above.
94 Organisations such as Sacro, Action for Children and Apex.
95 Howard League Scotland website, www.howardleaguescotland.org.uk
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Appendix 2:
Probation systems in the UK
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................... 34
When can probation happen? ............................................ 34
The probation model in each jurisdiction .......................... 34
England and Wales ........................................................ 34
Recent changes to probation in England
and Wales – ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ ...................... 35
Northern Ireland ............................................................ 35
Scotland ......................................................................... 36
Probation after release from prison ................................... 36
Can probation help develop personal skills
and social inclusion? .......................................................... 37
Tailoring supervision to specific needs .............................. 38
The importance of informed consent
and engagement ................................................................. 38
Support for families ........................................................... 39
Assessing progress during supervision ............................. 39
Transparency: measuring effectiveness ............................ 40
Inspection and monitoring ................................................ 40
Probation research ............................................................ 40
Legal and ethical responsibilities of
probation agencies and staff .............................................. 41
Data protection .................................................................. 42
Human rights ..................................................................... 42
Complaint procedures ....................................................... 43
Qualifications for probation work ...................................... 43
Interaction between probation and other services ........... 44
Prisons ........................................................................... 44
The court service ............................................................ 45
Social services ................................................................ 45
Input into crime reduction strategies ........................... 45
Probation staff and resources ............................................ 45
Staff costs and resource allocation ............................... 46
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 33
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Introduction
Probation is a core element of how alternatives to prison
are provided, yet the various functions of the probation
service or its significance within our justice system are not
generally well understood.
In what follows we provide a description of how
probation services are delivered in the three jurisdictions
of the UK. The information set out was originally provided
in answer to a set of specific questions put to the
researchers for all of the eight countries taking part in this
comparative EU project.
In England and Wales there have been far-reaching
changes to probation since 2014, the full effects of which
will not be clear for some time. We begin with an overview
of current UK practices and important recent developments.
When can probation happen?
Across the UK, probation can take place after a person’s
conviction for an offence, either: (1) as an alternative
sanction (when ordered as a requirement of a community
sentence or a suspended sentence); or (2) after a prison
sentence when a person is released on licence or on
parole or because a period of probation is compulsory as
an additional part of the original sentence.
Mandatory supervision cannot be imposed on unconvicted persons, although probation workers have roles
prior to conviction and sentence. Pre-trial, they assist courts
with decisions to grant or refuse bail, check compliance
with bail conditions, and help with bail condition
monitoring and enforcement. After conviction but before
sentencing, they provide information to aid the court in
sentencing. After sentencing, the probation service not only
provides supervision if ordered in the court’s sentence, but
also helps to give effect to other requirements imposed,
enforces supervision compliance and makes decisions
about how non-compliance should be handled.
Finally, after a person’s release from prison, the
probation service is involved in parole applications,
resettlement support, the monitoring of licence conditions
and decisions about whether a breach of conditions
should lead to recall to prison.
The probation model in each jurisdiction
England and Wales
England and Wales has more than a century’s history of
probation work. In the period since 2000, changes in
justice policy and sentencing and probation legislation
have shifted probation somewhat, from its traditionally
social-welfarist and rehabilitative roots, towards a more
control-based and punitive model. Since the mid-1990s,
greater emphasis has been placed on the demonstration
of effectiveness in supervision, measured by reference to
compliance with programmes and probation plans, and
reconviction rates. As part of this, more use has been
made of risk assessment models, accredited programmes
34 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
and performance targets. The amount of staff discretion
involved has been reduced.
Another major change in the role of the probation service
in recent years has been the increasing priority given to
public protection and the management of people perceived
as dangerous. Each local area has a system known as
MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements) to
ensure that police, probation and other agencies share
information and agree strategies to reduce the likelihood of
those under supervision committing serious offences.
There has been a large increase in the number of
people under pre- and post-release supervision since
2000. In part this is due to increased use of community
sentencing. But the bulk of the increase is due to: (1)
rising numbers being sentenced to 12 months or more, for
whom supervision on release from custody has been a
statutory requirement for several years; and (2) to changes
in sentencing laws, leading to more people spending
longer periods on supervised licence following release.
The model for supervision in England and Wales is the
National Offender Management Model, a universally
applicable probation model whereby a single offender
manager (OM) sets a supervision plan and others are
responsible for delivery of its specific elements.1 Having a
single OM with overall responsibility was a policy based
on research into effective probation work, which stressed
continuity of personnel as a key benefit and found its
absence was a factor leading to poor probation outcomes.
The OM is responsible for the overall management of the
individual and discharges this responsibility by
determining and implementing the sentence plan and
liaising with all agencies involved in delivering the
requirements of the sentence to ensure it is delivered
effectively and public protection is maximised.
Under this model, the nature and intensity of the
supervision applied to an individual is based on four tiers
aligned with perceived dangerousness and the risk of
reoffending: tier 1 - punish, tier 2 - help, tier 3 - change,
and tier 4 - control. The allocated tier will determine the
resource allocation: the greatest resource is allocated to
those considered most dangerous or prolific, under tier 4
(representing the smallest number under supervision, who
need not only punishment but also help, change
programmes, and control measures).
Assessing the risk of harm and the individual’s needs
has now become a central part of probation’s role. All
probation staff use the OASys risk and needs assessment
tool, which is intended to account for factors that
contributed to law-breaking, such as employment history,
living conditions, substance abuse, to measure threats and
risks. OASys is intended to:
●
●
●
●
●
●
help assess the likelihood of reconviction
identify and prioritise needs relevant to law-breaking
help assess risk of serious harm
help manage the risk of serious harm
facilitate sentence planning
measure change during supervision.
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
An additional assessment tool has been introduced for
the NPS, designed to assess the Risk of Harm. One
probation workers’ union has complained that the time
taken to complete the necessary form has greatly
increased staff workloads.
Separately probation officers should assess the maturity
of those in the ‘young adult’ category (18 to 24).
Sentencing Council guidelines state that consideration
should be given to ‘lack of maturity’ as a potential
mitigating factor in sentencing decisions for young adults.
In 2013 a guide to assessing maturity was developed for
probation workers and others in the justice system, based
on evidence from neuroscience, psychology and sociology
showing that young people mature at different rates and
are often not fully mature until their mid-twenties.2
The maturity assessment guide is intended to help
ensure that probation or community justice interventions
aimed at supporting desistence are informed by young
adults’ potential immaturity and take account of the
capacity for further development. Probation approaches
could, for example, focus on enabling positive
involvement in family and social relationships, including
community service or voluntary work. Proper maturity
assessment processes would also help to shed light on
the contexts in which law-breaking occurs. The guide
covers how to carry out the assessment of maturity, how
to cover it in PSRs, and how to develop appropriate
supervision plans. OASys is the system by which
information relating to maturity is captured and the guide
offers advice on how to do this.
Recent changes to probation in England and Wales – ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’
When it came to power in 2010 the coalition government
promised a ‘rehabilitation revolution’. This led to
unprecedented legislative changes in 2014-15 and a
complete restructuring of probation services, which have
been opened up to independent providers from both the
private and the voluntary sectors under a new ‘payment
by results’ system of funding. These changes, branded
‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ (TR), have presented
immense challenges to the service.
The 35 regional probation trusts that previously ran all
probation services have been broken up. The bulk of
probation work is now done by 21 Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). These regional
entities, usually partnerships between large corporates
such as Sodexo, and NGOs, employ thousands of former
probation trust staff. They supervise around 200,000 low
and medium-risk individuals a year.
Alongside the CRCs, a new public sector body known
as the National Probation Service (NPS) has been
created. The NPS supervises the remaining approximately
31,000 high-risk individuals. The NPS’ responsibilities are:
● Preparing pre-sentence reports for courts, to help
them select the most appropriate sentence
● Managing approved premises for people with a
residence requirement in their sentence
● Assessing those in prison to prepare for release on
licence to the community, when they will come under
our supervision
Northern Ireland
In comparison to England and Wales, the Northern Ireland
probation system has seen less upheaval in the years since
2000, although legislation in 2007 introduced some
changes which brought the systems of Northern Ireland
and England and Wales closer.3 For example, enforcement
and risk management have now become more prominent
● Helping those serving sentences in the community to
meet the requirements ordered by the courts
● Communicating and liaising with victims of serious
sexual and violent offences, after a prison sentence of
12 months or more has been ordered (or the person is
detained for mental health reasons).
The other key feature of the recent reforms is that
more people on short custodial sentences will receive
supervision after their release. This group had the
highest reconviction rates. The extent to which the CRCs
succeed in reducing the reconviction rates of this group
will be the main official measure the impact of these
reforms. Changes have also been made to arrangements
in the prison estate aimed at ensuring all prisoners
spend a period in a resettlement prison before their
release.
The stated aim of TR was to bring down reoffending
rates. There is a wide divergence of opinion on whether
it will succeed in this aim: fears are widespread among
probation professionals about the negative impacts the
reforms could have on probation standards and values.
One key issue will be the degree to which private
companies’ activities in performing public services in
probation work can be effectively scrutinised and held
to account. Freedom of information laws are a crucial
check on the power of the executive and it may be
necessary to extend their scope to breach this
accountability gap.
aspects of practice, as in England and Wales. In some
respects the system resembles that which was in place in
England and Wales prior to the 2014-15 restructurings
described above. But there some unique aspects to the
roles of probation staff. For example, the prosecution can
ask an officer of the Probation Board for a report to help it
decide whether to prosecute. There is no equivalent in
England and Wales to this notable use of probation
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 35
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
expertise at the point of potential diversion away from the
criminal justice system (but see Scotland’s similar
approach, below).
Responsibilities for policing and justice were only
devolved from the Westminster government in 2010,
several years after the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly
was established. Probation was an exception to the
politicisation of criminal justice during the period of civil
conflict that marked policing and prisons.4 In the mid1970s probation staff voted not to carry out mandatory
probation work with ‘politically motivated offenders’ in
protest at legislation imposing this form of sentence.
Since then probation has been characterised by political
neutrality which many practitioners believe helped
probation staff to achieve hands-on involvement in
communities and a more social work-driven focus.
For those remanded in custody, the probation service
has a social work role, for example, helping
communication with family members. After a prison
sentence, the role of probation officers has changed in
recent years as a result of new sentence structures for
those considered more
dangerous. These
Scotland and
sentences apply to serious
Northern Ireland
– No ‘payment by results’ sexual and violent offences
and involve greater public
in probation
protection roles for the
– Probation workers have probation service once the
key role in helping to
prison term has been
divert people from
served, requiring probation
criminal prosecution
supervision of up to ten
years.
Scotland
There has been no national probation service in Scotland
since 1968. Equivalent roles are carried out by criminal
justice social workers (CJSW), who are part of local
authorities’ social work departments. The CJSW staff give
information to criminal courts to assist in decisions on
bail and on sentencing, including a social enquiry report.
They also provide reports to prosecutors during the pretrial stage to help decide whether there is scope to divert
the person away from the prosecution altogether (a power
widely used for younger people).
CJSW provide supervision support to individuals
subject to measures intended to divert them from the
criminal justice process. They also provide supervision for
people on community sentences (for example, Supervised
Attendance Orders and Drug Treatment Orders) and
prisoners released on licence. They help with risk
assessment and risk management planning for high risk
offenders subject to monitoring in the community under
multi-agency public protection (MAPPA) arrangements.
CJSW also have a legal duty to provide ‘voluntary
throughcare’ to those released from prison and their
families, after short term (up to four years) sentences, if
this service is requested. National and local NGOs also
help provide support
36 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Scotland has not followed England and Wales in
introducing privatisation and payment by results in the
probation service. Instead there has been a drive to
coordinate delivery through public sector, local
government and voluntary institutions. This is part of
Scotland’s unique Community Planning process of
decision-making which aims to help public agencies
collaborate with communities to deliver better services in
line with national priorities. There is private sector
involvement in electronic monitoring.
Probation after release from prison
In all three jurisdictions, probation services play a role in
delivering post-release supervision, which has become
increasingly geared towards risk control and public
protection in recent years. All three countries have chosen
to focus policy and resources on preventing reoffending
and managing risk, rather than achieving social
reintegration or offering a fuller range of personal support.
This emphasis is clear in the content of post-sentence
supervision requirements laid down in guidance and
regulations.
England and Wales: Several studies and reports have
highlighted the importance of access to education, training
and employment, for the successful resettlement of those
who leave custody.5 Another important factor identified is
rebuilding relationships with family, friends and others
who can offer support such as former employers.
Inspection reports in the mid-2000s regularly criticised
prisons’ and probation services for failing to provide the
necessary planning, support or access to facilities. Causes
identified were high prisoner numbers, poor information
sharing, bad sentence planning and staff shortages.6 The
most recent inspection report, from 2014, found that
supervision and resettlement work in prison had had little
impact in helping with employment, education and
training, or accommodation assistance. This was partly
due to weak sentence planning and poor informationsharing across prison departments, particularly with
shorter sentenced prisoners.
Since the commencement of the new legal regime
under TR in early 2015, everyone sentenced to less than
two years is released half way through the sentence and
subject to a licence period for the balance of the sentence
period (during which supervision will occur), followed by
up to 12 months of compulsory supervision (during which
it will continue). Those given short sentences will spend
longer under post-sentence supervision; those given
longer ones will spend longer on licence and less time
under supervision. Those serving short sentences and
those with less than three months to serve should be held
in ‘resettlement prisons’ in the area in which they will be
released. Resettlement services should be organised on a
‘through the gate’ basis, making greater use of mentors
and with some of the payment to providers (CRCs) geared
towards the outcomes they achieve in reducing
reconviction rates.
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Post-sentence supervision is covered in a specific
instruction.7 This explains that the requirements that can
be imposed for the supervision period after expiry of the
licence period are more limited than those in a licence
(where conditions are laid down, breach of which results
in recall). This leaves more scope for OMs to decide on
the best approach to rehabilitation. Requirements are
imposed by prison governors but proposed and
implemented by probation staff. They include good
behaviour and residence requirements, keeping in touch
with and receiving visits from the probation supervisor,
not travelling without permission, not working without
approval and taking part in activities as instructed by the
supervisor. The activity requirements can include one-toone work, restorative justice, or other programmes likely
to enhance rehabilitation. Drug supervision can also be
requested by supervisors which can be backed up by drugtesting requirements.
The relationship between prisons and probation
services is key to improving the life chances of exprisoners. It will also be important that the new CRCs
harness the involvement of other public bodies (health,
education and employment ministries and their agencies)
and of voluntary sector
organisations. The latter
‘There are some
can be effective partners of
immediate issues which
prisons and probation
must be rectified as a
services, in ensuring the
matter of priority if support opportunities for change
for offenders in moving
and desistence are
from custody into the
maximised on release.
community is to work to
In addition to postrelease supervision, CRCs
best effect. These include
in the prisoner’s home
as a matter of urgency
area are required to
resolving staffing
shortages and clearing the provide a basic
resettlement service to
backlog of risk
every prisoner before
assessments. Both issues
release. Where they
are likely to hamper
consider it necessary a
considerably the efforts of CRC can call on the prison
the new providers of
service to provide some
Community Rehabilitation
rehabilitative support (eg a
Companies as they seek to drug treatment
implement their throughprogramme) before
the-gate services. There is release. Probation officers
are responsible for carrying
a risk that such services
out risk and needs
could be rendered
assessments at this stage
inoperable as a result of
failures in the system that but, due to staffing
pressures, this is not done
are the responsibility of
in all cases.8 A March 2015
NOMS.’
report9 highlighted a risk
that under-resourcing in
Justice Select Committee prisons would hamper the
report, Prisons: planning
CRCs in providing
and policies, March 2015 aftercare.
Scotland: In 2003 the prison service began a scheme of
contractual management of its public sector prisons and
the contracts require that resettlement activities are
measured. This includes risk and needs assessments,
programme participation, providing training and
qualifications for employment, and securing
accommodation. Help from other statutory agencies,
including benefits and housing, is provided in prison to
cut out delays in prisoners and their families accessing
money and housing, where needed.
Northern Ireland: The PBNI provides probation services to
prisons to ensure social welfare duties are met and
assistance is given to governors to set the licence
conditions. Several of the accredited programmes offered
by PBNI were developed by NOMS for use in England and
Wales (eg thinking skills and aggression management
programmes). An inspection report from 200710 noted that
little or no resettlement service was in place for short-term
prisoners. It found a heavy reliance on voluntary and
community sector bodies for delivery of necessary
services, pointing to the underfunding of such bodies as a
potential weakness in the system. It also criticised the
absence of a personal resettlement officer scheme which
would help to improve services and outcomes. The report
emphasised the need to hold women prisoners separately
in the interests of good resettlement practice.
Can probation help develop
personal skills and social inclusion?
While some alternatives to custody (such as unpaid work
and tagging) are designed principally to punish and
control, probation supervision in the UK aims to offer the
support necessary to prevent further law-breaking. Part of
this is helping people to access opportunities to develop
skills and social inclusion. In practice, the availability of
these benefits to people under supervision is not
guaranteed and will depend on several factors.
One key factor is the early establishment of a good
relationship with a dedicated and skilled probation officer
who meets the person regularly as part of a planned
supervision process. Under the new system in England
and Wales much of the standard work of supervising
people subject to probation is now being carried out by
CRCs. It remains to be seen whether they are as wellplaced as former probation trusts to equip individuals with
necessary skills to obtain work and the support needed to
improve social inclusion.
Assisting with literacy and numeracy skills and helping
probationers complete job applications and prepare for
job interviews are services commonly offered by CRCs.
Another example is the Women’s Programme run by
London CRC, designed to help women convicted of certain
offences to develop personal skills to turn their lives
around. This CRC also offers a ‘Thinking Skills
Programme’ to help frequent offenders develop patterns of
thought to help them desist, and ‘Steer Clear’, a drinkdrive programme focusing on the impact of alcohol on
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 37
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
behaviour.11 Other programmes are designed to help tackle
aggression, problems around abusive relationships, and
difficulties in building and maintaining personal
relationships. These programmes have the capacity to help
restore social inclusion and develop skills. Their success
will depend on the availability of places on the
programmes and on their quality.
The UK systems also require probation staff to perform
other functions including enforcing the court’s sentence
(or conditions imposed on release) and managing
perceived risks of harm to victims and wider society. These
functions can sometimes impede probation work designed
to develop skills and independence, especially in a time of
reduced resources.
The research shows that social inclusion of those under
supervision is aided by effective interaction with probation
officers – ideally, regular contact with the same probation
officer, who supports the person through any necessary
programmes and ensures any adaptations are made where
helpful.
In Northern Ireland and Scotland, probation staff and
CJSW staff work with voluntary sector programme
providers, using similar approaches to help those under
supervision develop their social inclusion skills, although
the delivery methods differ from England and Wales and
there is no payment-by-results system. Here, too it is
accepted that a high quality relationship with a trained
supervisor is as important as accessing accredited
programmes if the supervision is to respond to the
person’s individual needs.
Tailoring supervision to specific needs
A supervision requirement does allow for greater
individualisation according to the person’s needs and
circumstances. Once the probation order has been made,
the offender manager will use the computerised OASys
assessment tool, which offers a degree of individualisation
to meet the needs of the offender, and which results in a
detailed sentence plan including how the need will be
addressed. Categories of need listed in OASys correspond
to factors thought to increase the risk of law-breaking.
They include accommodation, alcohol or drug issues,
lifestyle, behaviour and relationship problems. Plans or
interventions to address these needs are also entered into
OASys, for example, treatment programmes, training or
counselling. Detailed compulsory rules are in place for
both prisons and probation to follow around sentence
planning.12
Other individual assessment tools can also be used to
ensure the programme is properly adapted to the
offender’s needs. An important example is the Maturity
Assessment Tool for young adults, discussed later.
Whether these tools and other available resources are
used effectively to produce a responsive supervision plan
will depend largely on the skill of the probation officer in
building a relationship with the offender. The use of
professional judgment and discretion is important. As we
explain later, much work has been done in the UK to
38 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
produce national standards and rules aimed at bringing
about strong relationships and ensuring offender
engagement, in recognition that this approach is better at
promoting desistance.
Even where no tailored requirements (such as taking
part in a work skills programme or relationship building
programme) have been ordered at the sentencing stage,
there is also an opportunity during supervision process for
the probation officer to refer people to such programmes,
if likely to benefit them. Probation officers often refer
individuals under their supervision to take part in therapy
or treatment as part of a probation plan. Many probation
officers, however, have complained of the lack of available
places on such treatment programmes, long waiting lists,
and a reluctance on the part of mental health practitioners
to provide services to those referred by probation officers.13
Similarly there is the opportunity for prisoners at parole
hearings to have tailored programmes suggested and
supported by probation officers.
Some fear that the TR reforms will result in probation
officers playing less of a role in individualised programmes
designed to help offenders, for example if privatisation
results in staff cuts and lower professional standards.
Some, though, have pointed to the potential of the TR
reforms to introduce a greater degree of personalisation
into probation and other criminal justice functions.14
In Northern Ireland, pre-sentence reports are prepared
by the Probation Board and fulfil similar purposes as in
England and Wales. They are prepared according to Core
Standards on the quality of probation work. A shorter
report known as a Specific Sentence Report is also used in
some cases. Its purpose is to provide information to
sentencers to help them decide whether a community
service order or probation supervision is appropriate. Less
information is needed for such reports and their use has
recently increased.
In Scotland, CJSW staff have an important role in
advising and assisting the court before sentence is passed.
In recent years it has taken a more directive role than
probation in England and Wales or Northern Ireland take
in that it seeks to influence the sentence rather than
merely provide information. This follows the clear policy
aim that court reports should influence sentencers
towards a non-custodial sentence, now strengthened by
legislation recently passed to the effect that whenever
custodial sentences of less than three months are being
considered, a presumption exists in favour of awarding a
community order instead.
The importance of informed
consent and engagement
As explained earlier, probation rules contain a sentence
planning process and a requirement that offender
engagement is prioritised. This means clear information
being provided at the start of the supervision process and
regular meetings to assess the degree of cooperation and
whether any adjustments are needed to enable
compliance. In practice, when a good personal
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
relationship is built up between supervisor and supervisee,
any programme or activity requirement proposed by the
supervisor will be one that has been selected with the
individual’s needs in mind, and is imposed with their
informed consent.
When a prisoner is released from custody, the licence
document will often contain a probation requirement, to
take effect after early release. Clearly consent in this
situaton is less freely given. While there is no requirement
for the person to sign it, if they refuse to do so the
governor can sign it instead and confirm that its terms
have been read out to the prisoner. Thus it can take effect
without the person’s signature to confirm consent to the
terms. As the consequence of breach is recall to prison,
compliance with licence requirements will in practice be a
matter of necessity rather than choice for many.
In Scotland (unlike the other UK countries), when a
Probation Order is imposed by the court, it must be with
the offender’s formal consent, which is recorded as
accepted instead of sentence, and requires the offender to
express his willingness to comply with all the
requirements, which must be explained by the court in
ordinary language. Successful completion of the order
means that the probationer receives no sentence for the
original offence; non-completion means the person can be
sentenced for the offence. Previously, consent was
required for all community-based disposals imposed by
the courts and this is still the case for a Probation Order
(with or without conditions), a Community Service Order,
and Drug Treatment and Testing Orders. However in
recent years some orders have not required the offender’s
consent including Community Reparation Orders,
Supervised Attendance Orders, and Restriction of Liberty
Orders. Breaches of orders are themselves criminal
offences with the consequence of further sentencing.
The only interventions possible before conviction are
those that can be imposed pre-trial in accordance with bail
law. These entail restrictions on liberty ranging from
electronic monitoring, reporting to the police, travel bans
and exclusion orders. There is no requirement of consent,
but the restrictions must be imposed through a fair and
transparent judicial process; procedural challenges by the
defence are possible. In principle this approach is seen as
sufficient to protect the presumption of innocence.
Support for families
There are schemes and programmes that work in various
ways with the families of offenders under probation
supervision. The ‘Children of Offenders’ Review in 2007
recommended better joint working among agencies to
support offenders’ families and criticised the absence of
coordinated support of family need. As a result, local
partnerships have been established by local authorities,
involving probation, prisons and the voluntary sector, to
work together to support offenders’ families. The
organisations involved vary from region to region, but
include charities providing childcare and other kinds of
family support to enable parents to undergo probation
supervision, and the assessment of suitability for
community orders being carried out in children’s centres.
An example is POPS (Providing Support to Families of
Offenders) which operates in parts of the north of
England. This charity has Family Support Workers attached
to prisons and probation providers and aims to ‘empower
families through the provision of timely information and
targeted support’ when a family member is involved in the
criminal justice system.
Family interventions of various kinds have been
presented as ways of enabling probation staff to build
stronger relationships with individuals. Researchers in the
northwest of England have conducted a thematic review of
several such interventions in their area. The work explores
the benefits of such practices but also their inherent
tensions in view of the additional pressures that probation
involvement can bring into family environments.15
There are also programmes that focus on helping
individuals build their parenting skills as a means of
helping to desist from crime. The charity Safe Ground
offers a number of these programmes, both to prisoners
preparing for release, and to people given community
orders.
One of the main findings of a 2014 inspection report on
resettlement was that too little attention had been paid to
the importance of the family’s role in effective
resettlement.16 It called for a determined strategic effort
and national guidance to put this right. There is now an
instruction on rehabilitation for those in resettlement
prison: key tasks include facilitating links with families and
providing help with parenting and relationship skills, and
offering through-the-gate support and mentoring.
In Northern Ireland the PBNI contributes funding to a
service Family Links managed by Northern Ireland
Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
(NIACRO) to assist families to reduce the impact of the
imprisonment of a member. Such responses to relieving
stress and loss implicated in a state judicial sentence are
justified as a response to acute needs. In Scotland, the
charity Families Outside offers support and information to
families affected by imprisonment.
Assessing progress during supervision
In England and Wales it is a compulsory requirement on
probation and prison staff to produce an assessment of
‘risks and needs’ and a sentence plan and to review this
plan throughout the sentence.17 Assessments and plans
must be reviewed during the course of, and at the end of,
the sentence whenever there is a significant change that
impacts on the risk of further law-breaking and/or serious
harm posed by the offender, which may include where a
transfer has taken place, the offender has been released
from custody, and/or one or more objectives in the
sentence plan has been achieved. They key tool for this
work is OASys.
However there may be scope for improvement, by
conducting a formal review of progress shortly after the
first assessment when a community order has been made.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 39
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
A recent MOJ research paper on reconviction rates of
those issued with community orders suggested that a
formal review by Offender Managers of the initial offender
assessment in the first months (when the risk of reoffending is highest), could ensure implementation of
sentences is tailored to the changing attitudes and needs
of the offender. For example, such a review might suggest
a need for additional support requirements and/or
sentence flexibility.
In Northern Ireland, the probation board uses a system
developed in England and Wales in the mid-1990s (since
replaced by OASys), known as the Assessment, Case
Management and Evaluation System. This is designed to
facilitate structured assessments at all stages of
supervision, focusing on the offender’s needs (dynamic
and criminogenic) and also motivation levels and likely
responses. It involves a systematic recording process and
permits the measurement of progress through all stages.
In Scotland, guidance on sentence planning, delivery
and monitoring is contained in National Objectives and
Standards for CJSW.
Transparency: measuring effectiveness
Information on community sanctions, supervision and
other programmes is not provided in way that makes it
easy for people outside the justice system to gauge their
effectiveness.
As the commissioning body for probation services in
England and Wales, NOMS receives and publishes
performance data.18 The Ministry of Justice publishes
statistics on the number and types of alternatives and
sometimes commissions and publishes research on
effectiveness, in terms of outcomes. Where such research
is conducted, the measure of effectiveness is focused on
reconviction rates. However, looking at effectiveness purely
on the basis of reconvictions omits much of the positive
impact that good supervision (and the effective use of
alternatives to custody more broadly) can have for
individuals, families and wider society. It fails to recognise
the distance often travelled by individuals who have been
involved in the criminal justice system and have benefited
from an intervention that does not involve prison. Such
benefits can include better employment prospects and
improved health. Measures that focus only on reconviction
rates fail to reflect the fact that some offenders may offend
far less frequently, or commit far less serious offences,
than if they had been sentenced to immediate custody.
Inspection and monitoring
There are independent inspectorates in each UK
jurisdiction. In England and Wales Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Probation reports directly to the Justice
Secretary on the quality of the assessment, planning and
implementation of work with offenders and those at risk of
breaking the law. It carries out inspections examining a
representative sample of offender cases, to assess whether
probation work has been conducted to a satisfactory
standard. Findings are supported by commentary by the
40 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Inspectorate based on its discussions with offender
managers. The Inspectorate also obtains the views of
sentenced individuals, victims and sentencers through
questionnaires included in the reports, which are publicly
available.
In addition to the external inspection of probation
services, NOMS carries out performance assessment.
Prior to the TR restructuring, the Probation Trust Rating
System assessed the performance of the 35 probation
trusts against 12 indicators for 2012-13 (reduced to seven
indicators for 2013-14), falling under three areas: public
protection; reducing reoffending; and sentence delivery.
Performance is graded from ‘exceptional’ to ‘serious
concerns’ and, again, the results are publicly available.
In Northern Ireland, performance data is provided in the
PBNI annual reports. Independent inspections are carried
out by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate of Northern
Ireland. This published a positive inspection report on
Northern Ireland’s probation service in May 2014.19
In Scotland, the Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA)
is responsible for inspecting all social work services within
local authorities. It publishes reports on specific
authorities and occasional ‘thematic’ reports. Also the
performance of local staff and the implementation of
National Objectives and Standards are subject to ongoing
monitoring by local authority management and the SWIA.
The Scottish Social Services Council registers all social
workers and promotes Codes of Practice for social work
services staff and other service providers.
Probation research
Most large-scale research projects on probation and the
effects of community sentencing are government-funded
and commissioned. They are often carried out by Ministry
of Justice or NOMS analytical teams in conjunction with
independent research bodies and/or academics. These
studies frequently make use of the statistical data
published by government departments and agencies. The
focus tends to be on reconviction patterns and assessing
effective means of preventing further law-breaking
including through delivery of community sentences and
probation supervision. The NOMS Offender Engagement
Programme commissioned a review of available research
on desistence, published in March 2010.20
OASys and other criminal justice databases, such as the
Police National Computer, offer large volumes of data,
with details of hundreds of thousands of offenders and
risk assessments. Though limited in scope, such data can
be used for research on effective types of sentence and
methods of supervision. OASys analysts working in NOMS
carry out regular research to assist government in policy
formulation around probation and alternative sanctions.
There is a lot of research on desistence theory including
studies of individuals over long periods of time to assess
what has been effective or ineffective in leading them to
desist. One research programme has included surveys by
questionnaire of practitioners and probationers.21 The
independent statutory body, the Economic and Social
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Research Council, has also funded research projects and
practitioner events on effective desistence practice.
Research is often directed at new programmes or
initiatives in offender management, for example, on the
uses of cognitive behavioural therapy and thinking skills
programmes or anger management programmes.
Overarching literature analyses are also undertaken to
bring together and report on all existing research into a
given area, such as quality in probation practices, or
effective desistence practice, some providing comparative
information on different countries’ approaches.22
The government also commissions studies on
reconviction outcomes for groups of individuals given
community orders.23 The resulting reports contain sections
on implications for probation practice, for example, that
fewer but longer meetings with offender managers are
more effective, and that better interim reviews are required
to assess whether changes are needed to the plan or the
sentence itself.
There is some independently funded research by NGOs
and academics. Examples include research on the effects
of England and Wales’s shift towards greater use of
community sentencing and suspended sentences.24 There
is a small amount of practitioner-led research, for
example, that conducted under the Griffins Society model
(the Society funds research by practitioners who seek to
bring about change in the treatment of women and girls
who offend and those at risk of breaking the law). There
are also several economic analyses of the relative costs
and benefits of prison and alternatives.25
Legal and ethical responsibilities
of probation agencies and staff
In England and Wales the duties and activities of
probation agencies are largely contained in the Offender
Management Act 2007. This Act confers power on the
Justice Secretary to issue guidelines and standards for the
work of probation agencies, which take the form of
Probation Instructions containing detailed mandatory
rules for the delivery of probation services nationally. Since
the TR restructuring, the requirements on CRCs to provide
the bulk of probation services are also defined in
contractual service level agreements enforceable by
NOMS.
In addition, National Offender Management Standards
made under the 2007 Act have statutory force. The latest
version was introduced in February 2015 to take account of
recent changes including compulsory supervision for all
short-sentenced offenders.26 They comprise twelve highlevel standards for all probation work, covering:
1 Record keeping – recording of contacts with offender,
ensuring safe storing of, and necessary access to, data
2 Court services – giving necessary information and
reports to court to help decision making;
communicating sentence as necessary
3 Allocation of cases to appropriate probation service
provider; clear identification of responsible supervising
probation worker; system of induction for every
offender with clear explanation of commitments and
what happens if fail to comply.
4 Planning – preparation of a plan covering risk of harm,
how it will be managed, what the offender’s needs are
for sentence to be delivered, and likelihood of
reoffending. This is prepared after sentence
(community or suspended sentences) and up to 12
weeks before release (offenders in custody)
5 Plan implementation – face-to-face appointment within
five days of case allocation (or within one day of release
from custody, with ‘purposeful contact’ occurring at
pre-release stage, and maintained after release);
updating of plan as needed; facilitating offender’s
engagement with community resources; transferring
offender between probation providers ‘to maintain
continuity and effective management of the offender
and delivery of the sentence’.
6 Risk management – assessing and managing offender’s
risk of causing ‘serious harm’ and taking appropriate
action to manage any immediate risk of serious harm
to public, known victims or others.
7 Victims – statutory duties to provide information and
liaison services.
8 Premises – residence planning where appropriate
9 Enforcement of sentence – issuing warnings in cases of
non-compliance, and in case of licence breaches where
no acceptable explanation is provided, taking action
which can include seeking recall to prison.
10 Review of plan – where new information indicates
significant change in offender’s circumstances
11 Completion of sentence - evaluation of extent to which
its objectives were achieved
12 Delivering sentence requirements – preparing offenders
to undertake the activity set out in plan in order to meet
requirements of sentence or post-release licence.
An independent association of probation professionals,
the Probation Institute, has published a Code of Ethics for
its members. This sets out high level professional values
confirming, for example, members’ belief in individuals’
ability to change, in the inherent worth and dignity of the
individual, and stating commitment to promoting diversity
and human rights.27
Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)
provide a statutory framework to manage violent and
sexual offenders. MAPPA guidance issued by the Ministry
of Justice provides a mechanism through which police,
prisons and probation agencies work together in their local
geographical area, sharing information and assessing risks
and needs. The guidance covers the monitoring of exprisoners released on licence. It explains when information
about the person’s previous convictions should be
disclosed to others, where a serious risk of harm exists.
In Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, new laws
and statutory rules governing probation work are now
tested for human rights compliance. Probation standards
have recently been updated on the basis of a review of
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 41
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
international best practice including the European
Probation Rules. The Probation Board of Northern Ireland
publishes professional rules, protocols and policy
documents, including a Best Practice Framework and the
Northern Ireland Standards for probation. The PBNI also
publishes a statement of values including respect for
human dignity, recognising the capacity for change,
commitment to diversity, victim awareness,
professionalism and integrity.
In Scotland, the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act
2005 contains the statutory framework for the operation of
Community Justice Authorities, which fund and oversee
the provision of probation services. The legislation
identifies probation as a social work provision and part of
local authorities’ duties towards ensuring community
safety. National Objectives and Standards for Social Work
Services in the Criminal Justice System set professional
standards and benchmarks for probation services. These
include reducing the use of custody and promoting
alternatives in the community.28
Data protection
Throughout the UK probation providers have duties with
regard to offender data, under the Data Protection Act
1998. They are responsible for deciding what personal
information is to be processed and how that should take
place. Other statutory guidance states that information
about an individual should not be released unless the
release is ‘adequate, relevant and not excessive’.
NOMS has issued guidance for those working in
probation, explaining the obligations and how to ensure
that any disclosure of information to victims by probation
staff is necessary and proportionate under Art 8 ECHR, for
example, by barring disclosure of information regarding
the person’s planned address, about any medical or other
treatment programmes that will be undertaken. Similar
guidance is published by the Scottish government and the
PBNI.
Human rights
The Human Rights Act 1998 requires all UK legislation to
be framed and interpreted compatibly with the ECHR, with
proceedings possible in domestic courts to challenge
compatibility. The ECHR guarantees are also given effect in
specific domestic law. For example, Article 5 is
implemented through the law and procedure relating to
sentencing, probation instructions and parole board rules.
Serious disruption to private and family life, and to the
right to freedom of association, due to electronic
monitoring, curfews and similar restrictions could amount
to a breach of rights enshrined in the ECHR. But in the
criminal justice context it is very rare for ECHR rights to
found successful challenges to probation requirements (or
sentencing procedure or practice).
A recent English case involved a successful challenge by
a prisoner to a decision by probation to insist that the
manager of the accommodation where he would be living
when released should be informed of his conviction for
42 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
murder. The court held this was disproportionate under
Art 8, on the facts of the case and in light of the risks of
reoffending as perceived by the probation officers
involved.29
The state is entitled to interfere with Article 8 rights in
pursuance of legitimate aims, but only if the interference is
reasonable and proportionate to those aims. Challenges
usually fail when the court decides that the interference is
necessary and proportionate in the interests of national
security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime
or the protection of the rights of others. The Human Rights
Act 1998 requires probation officers and parole boards to
act compatibly with the subject’s rights under the ECHR.
Damages can be awarded under the Act where loss or
damage is incurred as a result of a decision taken which is
incompatible.
Licence conditions are not designed to be punitive, but
to manage risk and protect the public.30 To be lawful they
must be both necessary and proportionate to the needs of
protecting the public and preventing further crime.
‘Necessary’ means that no other means of managing a
particular risk is available or appropriate. ‘Proportionate’
means that the restriction on liberty is the minimum
required to manage the risk. Conditions may infringe a
person’s right to a private and family life under Article 8.
They can be challenged by judicial review to test their
necessity and proportionality.31 The same applies to any
challenge to supervision requirements: legal aid is
available for such reviews, subject to merits and means
tests. But recent changes to judicial review and legal aid
entitlements could severely limit this as a route to
challenging supervision on human rights grounds.
CRCs are bound by human rights obligations in the
same way as the previous public bodies that performed
probation work. Therefore, when private contractors
provide services that are public in nature under the new
arrangements, they will be obliged to act in a way that is
compatible with ECHR rights. This will include acts
necessary for the core function of supervising individuals
in the community. Probation instructions contain detailed
requirements on health and safety, diversity and dignity at
work, which extend to those on unpaid work requirements.
National standards and practices have for several years
contained references to the need for those working in
prisons and the probation service to respect diversity and
to work without discrimination. Nevertheless, it has been
argued that rehabilitation opportunities, in practice, are far
fewer for foreign nationals.32 No formal requirements exist
for sentencers or probation workers to ensure their
decisions take account of the potential disadvantages
facing foreign nationals. As a matter of policy, political
imperatives to deport non-nationals after their sentences
have been served consistently overshadow any principled
approach to ensure effective rehabilitation. This can be
seen in, for example, the UK Borders Authority Strategy’s
commitment to ‘Considering with partners, including the
Crown Prosecution Service, the most effective use of outof-court disposals such as cautions together with
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
immigration powers, to remove low level foreign national
offenders as an alternative to prosecution.’33
Research from Northern Ireland suggests difficulties for
probation in engaging effectively with those in the Irish
Traveler community.34 Similarly certain types of order such
as a curfew with electronic tagging may be insufficiently
flexibly applied to allow those wishing to worship regularly
outside the home to do so without breaching the order.
The government publishes statistics on offender
equalities showing, for example, proportions - broken
down by characteristics including race, faith, gender and
age - of offenders in custody, supervised in the community,
released on licence or HDC, or completing orders or
programmes.35
Complaint procedures
In England and Wales if a prisoner wants to challenge the
probation conditions imposed in a licence, or complain
about the necessity or proportionality of additional licence
conditions imposed, the complaint can be considered by
the Prison and Probation Ombudsman (PPO). The PPO is
independent of the MOJ, NOMS and the probation service
providers.
Complaints to the PPO can be referred by people serving
community sentences under probation supervision and by
any person who has had a report about them written by
probation, including prisoners wishing to apply for early
release under licence, home detention curfew or parole.
Annual reports are published by the PPO summarising
complaints referred and the outcomes. Data are also
provided on the number of complaints received and the
number investigated and upheld. Recent complaints have
included: failures by offender managers to have any
contact with the complainant; inappropriate disclosure of
information about the individual; and incorrect
assessments of risks posed.
If the complainant is not satisfied with the way their
complaint is dealt with by the PPO, they can refer the case
to the Parliamentary and Health Service (PHS)
Ombudsman. The PHS Ombudsman investigates
complaints from members of the public about some
public bodies, including probation providers. Cases can
only be referred to the PHS Ombudsman by a person’s
Member of Parliament. It will normally only investigate a
complaint about a probation provider after the
complainant has tried to resolve the complaint with the
probation agency, on the basis that they should be given a
chance to respond and, where appropriate, try to make
amends, before the Ombudsman becomes involved.
There is a Probation Instruction on complaints
processes to be followed by NPS and CRCs.36
Several witnesses to a recent parliamentary enquiry
described delays in responses to complaints to the PPO,
partly caused by a recent legislative change removing legal
aid from many areas of prisoner issues.37
In Northern Ireland, similar procedures apply as those
in England and Wales: information is available on the
PBNI website.
In Scotland, local authorities must provide complaints
procedures and appeal mechanisms. If the individual is
not satisfied with the initial CJSW response, there is a
statutory right to refer the complaint to a Complaints
Review Committee, made up of locally elected politicians.
Both the Social Work Department and the complainant are
represented at a Review Committee. If the case is not
resolved, it can be referred to the Local Authority
Ombudsman for consideration.
Qualifications for probation work
England and Wales: Before 1998, training for probation
officers was through a social work qualification. This was
replaced by the Diploma in Probation Studies, to
accompany the ‘punishment in the community’ agenda
and provide a specific criminal justice-based training.
There was a greater focus on risk assessment and public
protection.
Since 2010, the main route to qualify as a PO is the
Probation Qualifying Framework, which combines
educational learning with on-the-job experience as a ‘PSO
Learner’. The time taken to qualify will depend on previous
academic achievement: usually 15 months to three years.
The qualifications are provided by three universities under
a NOMS-awarded contract, which is currently being
reviewed. The existing qualification framework ends in
2016.38
The PQF allows staff to progress through ascending
levels of qualification whilst in employment. It also
introduced qualifications for PSOs, who work with lower
risk offenders, a new qualification for Probation Case
Administrators and an updated more flexible qualifications
leading to eligibility for Probation Officer posts.
Unlike for most professions, England and Wales has no
register of qualified probation practitioners or any
requirement to sign up to a code of ethics or continuing
professional development rules. The Probation Institute, a
voluntary membership professional standards body set up
in 2014, will offer professional development opportunities
and has published a code of ethics for its members. The
Institute is an independent organisation aiming to become
a recognised centre of excellence for probation practice
and to develop a strong probation profession across
private, public and voluntary sectors in the wake of the TR
reforms.
Since TR came into force, MOJ has introduced
guidelines describing the qualifications, training and
experience required of officers of probation service
providers in the NPS.39 Staff undertaking probation work in
CRCs ‘must be competent and suitably trained, and
providers must be able to evidence this. This can be
evidenced through use of the PQF or an equivalent
qualification or an accredited training programme. Any
equivalent qualification or training programme should
relate to the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for
Probation.’ The NOS highlight the knowledge and skills
needed for probation work, reflecting changes in policy
around offender engagement, desistance, rehabilitation,
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 43
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
protection of the public, prison work, and restorative
justice.
NOS set standards and define key performance criteria
across several practice areas in probation, such as the
planning, reviewing and enforcement of sentences served
in the community, and the provision of information
needed at court hearings. NOS are also used in
recruitment, and awarding promotions.
NOS also cover work with victims and witnesses,
guiding practitioners on their work in providing
information or advice, counselling and helping with health,
safety and protection as well as keeping victims abreast of
individuals’ progress through the custodial or community
justice sentence. There are also several NOS on restorative
justice practices.
It is important that the skills of probation officers are
maintained and supported by the new CRCs’ recruitment
and professional development systems. To ensure high
standards are not compromised by competitive business
practices the CRCs will need to recruit, develop and
maintain suitably qualified and remunerated probation
staff.40 Following the restructuring of the probation service
some aspects of training are only offered via e-learning
programmes, including one compulsory course for those
applying to the NPS, on bail procedures.
Skills for Justice, a training standards body for the
justice sector across the UK, is developing a range of
vocational qualifications in criminal justice work for staff
who are not required to be professionally qualified social
workers but who are essential staff in the provision of
probation services.
Scotland: Qualified social work staff need a university
degree in social work or its equivalent. All social workers,
including CJSWs, must register with the Scottish Social
Services Council (SSSC) which provides educational and
continuing professional development. The social work
degree is a ‘general practice’ award and prepares staff for
work in a range of social work settings including child,
adult and public care and protection services. For new
recruits, induction training is provided by the local
authority. There are no formal qualification requirements
for volunteers in CJSW although vocational qualifications
are available. Minimum training is usually provided by
agencies.
In addition, various post-qualification and advanced
level awards are available for those wishing to obtain
higher qualifications.
Northern Ireland: Those who deliver the core professional
services (probation officers and psychologists) are
professionally qualified under relevant accredited
occupational standards. A degree in Social Work is now
the recognised professional qualification for probation
officers in Northern Ireland. It offers an integrated
programme covering a range of practice including family
and childcare, mental health and criminal justice. The
qualification is both an academic award and a professional
44 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
qualification, and is delivered through a partnership
between probation agencies and universities. New
graduates must then undergo a further Assessed Year in
Employment before achieving a fully recognised
qualification, which involves evaluation by a panel of
probation professionals of their work. Unlike probation
officers, PSOs do not need a social work or other
academic qualification, but are expected to obtain a
national vocational qualification within two years of
recruitment.
Further development opportunities are provided if a
probation officer wishes to obtain a post-qualification
award and progress to area management level in the
service.
Interaction between
probation and other services
Prisons
England and Wales: Until the 1960s there was no
relationship: aftercare was provided by a prisoners’ aid
charity. Subsequently there was greater interaction
between probation and prisons around licence and
aftercare, but they remained entirely separate. Until 2000,
the country’s 54 probation areas had more autonomy from
central government than prisons. This changed in 2000
when the service was reorganised into 42 Probation
Boards covering the same areas as local police forces. In
2003 a review recommended linking prisons and
probation to end the fragmentation and duplication
caused by two separate systems and their inability to link
effectively to reduce reoffending.
NOMS was created as a result, in 2004, with the aim of
creating a seamless transition of individuals from prison
to the community. NOMS is an executive agency
sponsored by the MOJ. It is responsible for prisons
(managing public sector prisons and accountable also for
those in private ownership by managing the contracts for
these). It also oversees probation delivery and
rehabilitation for prisoners and those being released.
Problems were encountered in the implementation of
this reorganisation, as several joint inspection reports
revealed.41 These included an absence of offender
managers for many prisoners, and the lack of sentence
plans or support with reintegration after release. It was
also felt that some offender managers gave prisoners less
priority than those they supervised in the community.
Three further restructurings have taken place since NOMS
was created but the organisation is still jointly responsible
for prisons and probation. (Information on post-release
probation was provided earlier.)
Northern Ireland: PBNI staff work alongside prison staff in
prison Offender Management Units, focusing on a shared
plan towards the prisoner’s release. The Owers report
cited earlier called for closer joint working between the
institutions.
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Scotland: a national advisory body for offender
management sets out a long term strategy and framework
for local authorities (responsible for CJSW and therefore
probation delivery) to collaborate with the prison service
and other partners such as police and prosecution
services. The eight Community Justice Authorities created
under 2005 legislation are tasked with working with the
prison service, local authorities and other agencies, to
ensure plans are created at local level to create effective
joint working between the agencies, distribute funds for
probation work in prisons and the community, and share
information and good practice between them.
The court service
Probation serves an important purpose in providing courts
with information needed about the individual, prior to bail
or sentencing decisions being taken, and in relation to
enforcement and breach of orders and requirements set by
the court. Throughout the UK, legislation and guidance
regulate the circumstances in which reports and other
information are provided by probation to the courts. The
effectiveness of these elements of probation’s work are
regularly subject to internal performance monitoring and
external inspection; courts generally give strong support
for the work of probation.
Following the TR restructuring in England and Wales,
the NPS will perform all the court-facing roles of
probation. Whether sufficiently high standards are
maintained will depend on the quality of information they
are able to provide on a timely basis to the court. In part
this will depend on caseloads and staffing and other
resources. A further key factor will be the quality and
timeliness of information they receive from the CRCs
about offenders and the availability of programmes and
support in the local area.
order to assess local crime priorities. They work with
probation and other public bodies to develop approaches
in tackling crime. The Probation Chiefs Association (prior
to being disbanded) issued a position statement
confirming the importance of probation supporting these
crime reduction partnerships.42
The MAPPA system (in which probation has a key role)
is also designed to prevent serious harm by ex-offenders.
Scotland: The Scottish government produces three-year
Criminal Justice Strategy plans.43 These outline the
government’s strategies to address crime prevention and
offender management. The eight Community Justice
Authorities are led by a Chief Officer who is responsible to
a Board of local politicians drawn from constituent local
authorities (each of which has a director of social work).
They are responsible for regional strategic planning. There
are 32 local authorities and each has its own
organisational arrangements for delivering criminal justice
services including crime prevention within the terms of the
community justice strategy.
Northern Ireland: The PBNI is one of seven criminal
justice agencies alongside police, courts and the
prosecution service among others, the directors of which
meet regularly as the Criminal Justice Board for the whole
of Northern Ireland. This body has an important function
in shaping strategy around crime prevention particularly in
the context of preventing re-offending. The PBNI also
contributes to local Community Safety Partnerships
organised by district, which form and deliver action plans
alongside police, housing, voluntary and community
sectors. Experts have noted that overstretched probation
teams find it difficult to service this work.
Social services
Probation staff and resources
In England and Wales, before TR, the 35 national probation
trusts were key members of local partnerships in the
criminal justice system and the wider community that
aimed to protect the public and reduce reoffending. Each
trust worked closely with local and national statutory and
voluntary organisations, including those providing
housing, education and mentoring services for the benefit
of offenders, and support services for victims. For the TR
reforms to succeed, it is vital that CRCs work closely with
these services.
England and Wales: Before the restructuring of the
probation service in 2014-15 under TR, all supervision work
was carried out by 35 government-funded probation trusts.
These had replaced previous bodies known as ‘probation
boards’ following legislation in 2007 (Offender
Management Act or OMA) which opened the way for
private sector providers to compete for a share of the
market for probation services. The area in which private
sector providers have been most active is in electronic
monitoring, but after TR they will be active in other areas
of community justice provision, including community
payback and accredited rehabilitation programmes.
OMA removed responsibility from probation boards to
arrange for the provision of probation services and
transferred it the Ministry of Justice, which (through
NOMS) commissioned probation services from newly
created probation trusts as well as from providers from
the private and voluntary sectors.
Following TR, there are now two main employing
bodies: (1) the National Probation Service (NPS), the
public body responsible for assessing the risk of harm
Input into crime reduction strategies
England and Wales: Crime Reduction Boards, Local
Criminal Justice Boards, and Community Safety
Partnerships are all statutory bodies that have to some
extent enabled probation to provide expertise for crime
reduction. For example, in London since 2010 a Crime
Reduction Board has met quarterly to share information
and work on crime reduction with probation staff, local
council officers, health workers, the police, and other
bodies. These bodies share information with each other in
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 45
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
posed by every offender, advising courts and parole
boards, handling most breach cases, and directly
managing those presenting high risk of harm including
those subject to MAPPA; and (2) the entities forming the
partnerships constituting the 21 regional Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). These include private
sector firms like Sodexo, large rehabilitation charities like
Nacro, smaller voluntary sector bodies, and mutuals run
by former probation trust staff.
The main grades for probation workers are probation
officers (POs), who are qualified, and probation service
officers (PSOs), who do not need to be. The statutory
‘offender manager’ role is not defined by grade but POs
generally manage tier 3 and 4 cases, and PSOs tier 1 and 2
cases. (Tiers were explained above.) Offender manager
roles are defined in the OMA and regulations made under
it. They include Responsible Officers, Supervisors and
Supervising Officers. Statutory instructions introduced
under TR contain requirements for both the NPS and
CRCs to ensure probation staff have the necessary
authorisation to perform the functions of probation.44
The NPS has seven divisional areas across England and
Wales. It works in partnership with the 21 CRCs in aspects
of the management of lower risk offenders. It also works
with courts, police, and private and voluntary sector
bodies to manage higher risk offenders. Each NPS division
and CRC is subject to an individual service level agreement
between it and the commissioning department, NOMS.
This agreement contains details of the minimum service
requirements for delivering court sentences, protecting the
public and reducing reoffending. Services in supporting
these outcomes cover: supporting victims, delivering court
services, managing risk, managing offenders and
interfacing with other system participants (including
courts, police, prisons and other organisations).
Northern Ireland: Arrangements here are simpler. All
aspects of adult probation work are delivered by a single
statutory body, the PBNI, throughout the country. The
work is either done by employed probation staff or by
community service and voluntary groups. The PBNI is
independent of government, but since 2010 has delivered
its services under the authority of the Justice Department,
following the devolution of policing and justice powers
from the Westminster parliament to the Northern Ireland
Assembly. It has grant-making powers and close links with
local community agencies and other statutory bodies.
PBNI has highly levels of partnership and co-operation
with other support agencies and wider civil society bodies.
Scotland: Probation has been provided by Criminal Justice
Social Work Services (CJSW) since the late 1960s, and
forms part of the wider work of the 32 local authorities.
CJSW teams consist of professionally qualified social
workers supervised by specialist team leaders responsible
for a range of criminal justice social work provision in a
geographical area. In addition, there are approximately
22,100 voluntary sector organisations operating within the
46 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
justice sector. 40% of these work in the social care field.
Volunteers have no responsibility for supervision of
offenders but can support of the efforts of professional
CJSWs. Volunteers undertake tasks to support the
reintegration of offenders including mentoring, alcohol
counselling, restorative justice, and education and
training. A private sector company, Reliance Security
Group, carries out monitoring (electronic tagging and
monitoring, and custodial transport services).
Staff costs and resource allocation
In England and Wales, as at
31 March 2013, the 35
probation trusts employed
18,282 staff in total.
Frontline probation staff
accounted for around 60%
of those employed. Trusts
then reduced overall staff
numbers by around 1,600,
most of them
administrative roles. Most
of the annual budget for
spending by probation
trusts in the final two years of their existence was allocated
to staff costs: £639m out of a total of £853m in 2012-13
and £646m out of a total of £867m in 2011-12.45
In terms of the proportion of spending relating to the
core functions of probation: in 2012-13, 50% was spent
supervising community orders and suspended sentences;
14% on supervising offenders on licence after their release
from custody; 13% managing the sentence before release
from custody; 13% on court work including bail services
and pre-sentencing reports; 9% on managing approved
premises for those under supervision and required to stay
at bail hostels; and 1% on victim liaison. Figures have
recently begun to be published by NOMS on the costs of
some of the key functions of probation based on staff time
spent on them. Average costs of producing a pre-sentence
report were £210; supervision of a person released on
licence, £2,620; and supervision of a community order or
suspended sentence, £5,860. (The average annual cost of
a prison place, by contrast, is around £36,000.)46
It is difficult to provide equivalent information for the
present and immediate future, due to the shift to private
sector delivery of most offender supervision across England
and Wales. The 21 contracts awarded to CRCs were said to
be worth £450m, with further funding to be provided to the
NPS for the highest risk offender management work, court
services and enforcement procedures.
Commercial secrecy in the running of private
companies providing public services makes it difficult to
know whether budgets
allocated will be sufficient.
Cost of prison
The companies are not
place per year
bound by the same rules
• (Male, Cat B) £33,167
• (Female, local) £46,720 on freedom of information
as public sector bodies,
Costs of probation
• Producing a presentence report: £210
• Supervising an
individual released on
licence: £2,620
• Supervising a
community order or
suspended sentence:
£5,860
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
putting financial and performance information beyond the
reach of NGOs and others interested in scrutinising them.
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee47
has criticised government practices in managing contracts
outsourcing former public services. It has called for
greater transparency.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 47
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Notes
1 See also National Offender Management Standards.
2 Taking account of maturity, a practice guide for probation, July 2013,
University of Birmingham and the Transition to Adulthood Alliance.
3 Stout B, ‘Should Northern Irish probation learn from NOMS?’ Irish
Probation Journal, 4(1), 25-31, 2007.
4 Carr N and Maruna S, ‘Legitimacy Through Neutrality: Probation and
Conflict in Northern Ireland’, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice,
474-487, 2012.
5 Examples include Through the Prison Gate. A Joint Report by HM
Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation, HMI Prisons and HMI
Probation (2001); the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction survey,
MOJ (2012), and the Joint Inspection Report on Resettlement, HMI
Prisons and HMI Probation (September 2014).
6 See, for example, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons annual report for
2005-6, and Lewis S, ‘What works in resettlement – findings from
seven pathfinders for short term prisoners in England and Wales’,
Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol 7, No 1, Feb 2007.
7 Post-sentence supervision requirements, PI 29/2014.
8 Prisons: planning and policies, HC 309, 18 March 2015.
9 Prisons: planning and policies (above).
10 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An inspection of the
Northern Ireland Resettlement Strategy (2007). Thematic inspections
of resettlement in prisons had also taken place in 2005 and 2006.
11 London Community Rehabilitation Company website: ‘Offending
behaviour programmes’. www.londoncrc.org.uk/what-we-do/
offending-behaviour-programmes
12 ‘Sentence Planning’, October 2014, PSI 14/2012 PI 9/2012.
13 Mair G and Mills H, The Community Order and the Suspended
Sentence Order three years on, 2009, Centre for Crime and Justice
Studies.
14 Criminal Justice Alliance, Personalisation in the criminal justice
system, 2013.
15 Clarke R, Kinsella R and Fletcher C, Reflections of practitioners doing
‘family work’ in the Criminal Justice System, 2014, Hallam Centre for
Community Justice.
16 HMI Prisons and HMI Probation, Joint Inspection Report on
Resettlement, September 2014.
17 ‘Sentence Planning’ (cited above).
18 Publicly available on the NOMS performance hub.
19 An inspection of community supervision by the Probation Board of
Northern Ireland, May 2013.
20 McNeill F and Weaver B, Changing Lives? Desistance research and
Offender Management. A literature review, 2010. SCCJR Project
Report; No.03/2010.
21 The NOMS Offender Engagement Project research programme.
22 For example, Davis R, Rubin J, A synthesis of literature on
effectiveness of community orders, 2008, (National Audit Office); and
The quality of probation supervision - a literature review, 2012,
Sheffield University.
23 The series is regularly published by the Ministry of Justice under the
title, Re-offending by offenders on Community Orders: Results from
the Offender Management Community Cohort Study.
24 Mair G, The community order in England and Wales: Policy and
practice, 2011; Mills H, Community Sentences: a solution to penal
excess? 2011.
25 For example, Matrix, The economic case for and against prison,
(2007).
48 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
26 ‘National Standards for the Management of Offenders’, applicable
from 1 February 2015.
27 Probation Institute, Code of Ethics, core values and ethical principles
(2015).
28 Scottish government, National Outcomes and Standards for Social
Work Services in the Criminal Justice System (2010).
29 R v NPS [2003] EWHC 2910.
30 R (on the Application of Carman) -v- Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2004] EWHC 2400 (Admin).
31 R (on the application of Ahmed) v National Probation Service and
another. The court held that judicial review provided a suitable
opportunity to challenge an offender’s licence conditions.
32 Hammond N, Canton R, ‘Foreigners to Justice? Irregular migrants
and foreign national offenders in England & Wales.’ European
Journal of Probation, Vol. 4, No 3, 2012.
33 UK Border Agency 2010: Protecting our border, protecting the
public: The UK Border Agency’s five year strategy for enforcing our
immigration rules and addressing immigration and cross border
crime.
34 Bracken D, ‘Probation practice with travellers in the Republic of
Ireland’, Irish Probation Journal, Vol 11, Oct 2014.
35 See for example NOMS equalities annual reports available on NOMS
website.
36 See 51/2014 NOMS ‘Probation Standard Complaints Procedure’.
37 Paras 158 and 162, Prisons: planning and policy, HC March 2015
(cited above).
38 ‘Probation Qualifications Framework’ 2010, ‘Probation Qualifications
Regulatory Manual’ November 2013.
39 MOJ, NOMS, A competent workforce to transform rehabilitation.
Effective from Feb 2015.
40 For a discussion of the challenges and risks for training presented by
the TR reforms, see Skinner C, Goldhill R, ‘Changes in probation
training in England and Wales: The probation qualification framework
three years on’, European Journal of Probation, 5(3) 2013, pp 41-55.
41 For example, A report on Offender Management arrangements in
Custodial Institutions in London, a Joint Inspection by HM
Inspectorates of Prison and Probation, 2008.
42 Probation Chiefs Association position statement, September 2011,
available here: probationchiefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/
PCA-Community-Safety-Partnership-Position-Statement-Sept
-2011-GF-Final2.pdf.
43 The current Strategy for Justice in Scotland, published September
2012, can be viewed on the Scottish government website, here:
www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/09/5924.
44 PI 31/2014, AI 27/2014, ‘Authorisation as ‘officer of a provider of
probation services’’ (NOMS).
45 Data from National Audit Office’s Probation: a Landscape Review,
March 2013 which in turn used data published by the MOJ and
NOMS.
46 Ministry of Justice, Costs per place and costs per prisoner
(Data for 2013-2014), October 2014. www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/367551/cost-per
-place-and-prisoner-2013-14-summary.pdf.
47 House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2014),
Contracting out public services to the private sector: forty-seventh
report of session 2013-14, London: House of Commons.
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Appendix 3:
Data Tables
Contents
1 Numbers in prison, since 2000 .................................... 51
2 Pre-trial: number remanded in custody each year ........ 54
7 Post-release measures .................................................. 65
i) Parole .......................................................................... 65
ii) Home Detention Curfew ........................................... 65
iii) Post-release supervision .......................................... 67
3 Pre-trial: number remanded on bail each year .............. 55
8 Probation resources ...................................................... 68
4 Number in prison serving a final sentence ................... 56
9 Number of probation officers since 2000 .................... 69
5 Community sentences ................................................... 57
10 Average caseload per probation agent ......................... 70
6 Suspended sentences ................................................... 64
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 49
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Introduction
In the following pages we present statistical data to
support and illustrate the information on prisoner
numbers and alternatives to custody in the body of this
report and in Appendices 1 and 2.
In separate tables, statistics are provided on:
● prisoner numbers
● alternatives to prison pre-trial, as sanctions in the
community, and following release from custody and
● probation service resources and caseloads.
The data cover all three UK systems and, as far as
possible, presented in a time series from the year 2000.
50 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
1 Numbers in prison, since 2000
For each jurisdiction, we provide two tables. The first
shows the annual prisoner population figures (giving the
flow and daily rates where available). The second provides
a detailed breakdown showing the number (per 100,000 of
the general population) and percentage of prisoners and
the basis of their sentence (length of sentence, or other
reason for custody).
Table 1: Numbers in prison: England and Wales1
Total population
2000
Flow rate
128,866 130,934 135,820 135,042 132,961 132,058 128,986 125,881 134,148 125,877 –
3.4
Daily rate
5
1
2
3
4
5
–
2001
–
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
20102
2011
2012
2013
2014
120,760 112,772 107,318 103,892
71,218 73,657 74,488 76,190 77,982 79,734 83,194 83,391 85,002 85,374 86,048 83,842 85,509
All data taken from ‘Offender Management Statistics’ (ONS) annual editions, Ministry of Justice.
Data for 2010 is unavailable.
Counted as first receptions into penal establishments. A person received into prison to serve a sentence may previously have been received on remand after
conviction prior to sentence and before that as a remand prisoner awaiting trial. First receptions will count that prisoner only once in the relevant period in which
they were first received.
Data for 2000 to 2002 taken from Offender Management caseload statistics 2009 statistics bulletin. 2003 onwards from Offender Management statistics
2013 annual tables.
Figures are at 30th June each year. Data prior to 2002 is not available. Due to the introduction of a new IT system in 2010 prison population data from 2009
onwards is taken from a different source and this affects the consistency of the time series.
Table 2: Detailed breakdown of numbers in prison: England and Wales
Prison population rate
per 100,000 population6
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
135
139
140
142
145
147
152
151
153
152
152
147
–
Pre-trial detainees
7,877
11.1
7,896
10.7
7,716
10.4
8,084
10.6
8,064
10.3
8,387
10.5
8,750
10.5
8,730
10.5
8,487
10.0
8,299
9.7
7,671
8.9
7,743
8,618
</= 6 month
Number
Percent
5,447
7.6
5,969
8.1
5,751
7.7
6,009
7.9
5,959
7.6
5,165
6.5
5,873
7.1
5,131
6.2
5,343
6.3
5,441
6.4
5,003
5.8
–
–
–
–
> 6 to < 12 months
Number
Percent
2,349
3.3
2,209
3.0
2,306
3.1
2,225
2.9
2,525
3.2
2,462
3.1
2,866
3.4
2,433
2.9
2,502
2.9
2,373
2.8
2,473
2.9
–
–
–
–
12 month to < 4 years
Number
Percent
21,858 21,378
30.7
29.0
21,436
28.8
21,628
28.4
21,619
27.7
22,840
28.6
23,632
28.4
20,362
24.4
20,857 20,392
24.5
23.9
21,304
24.8
–
–
–
–
=/> 4 years7
Number
Percent
27,618 29,835
38.8
40.5
31,431
42.2
32,317
42.4
33,301
42.7
35,067
44.0
35,753
43.0
34,577
41.5
36,819 37,983
43.3
44.5
39,238
45.6
–
–
–
–
Recalls8
Number
Percent
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
5,958
7.1
5,350
6.3
5,646
6.6
5,417
6.3
–
–
–
–
Non-criminal prisoners9
Number
Percent
831
1.2
1,145
1.6
1,017
1.4
1,069
1.4
1,422
1.8
1,289
1.6
1,520
1.8
1,555
1.9
998
1.2
946
1.1
1,162
1.4
–
–
–
–
Fine defaulters
Number
Percent
34
0.0
46
0.1
52
0.1
78
0.1
89
0.1
68
0.1
110
0.1
99
0.1
129
0.2
129
0.2
127
0.1
–
–
–
–
5,204
7.3
5,177
7.0
4,779
6.4
4,780
6.3
5,003
6.4
4,457
5.6
4,690
5.6
4,546
5.5
4,517
5.3
4,165
4.9
3,653
4.2
–
–
–
–
Percent
9
2003
Number
Percent
Convicted un-sentenced Number
6
7
8
2002
Calculated using Office for National Statistics (ONS) population estimates at 30th June each year.
Includes indeterminate sentences.
Due to the introduction of a new prison IT system in 2010, prison population data after 2009 is taken from a different source and recalls are shown separately
(they were previously included in the relevant sentence length band).
Non-criminals are those imprisoned for civil, rather than criminal, offences. As result of data quality work from April 2013, around 300 prisoners who had
previously been recorded as sentenced prisoners are now recorded as non-criminals.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 51
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 3: Numbers in prison: Scotland10, 11
Total population
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Flow rate
35,012
34,082
36,120
39,783
39,076
38,347
38,746
43,506
40,450
38,986
36,521
36,012
37,002
5,975
5,869
6,182
6,453
6,606
6,776
6,856
7,187
7,376
7,826
7,963
7,853
8,178
12
Daily rate
13
10 All figures taken from Prison statistics and population projections Scotland: 2011/12 and Prison statistics Scotland, various years, Scottish Govt.
11 Scotland found large errors when processing their prison data for 2012/13 and have delayed publication. Statistics for 2012/13 and 2013/14 were due to be
published alongside each other later in 2015.
12 Figures are for financial years, eg. 2003 = fiscal year 2002/03.
13 Figures are average daily population for financial years.
Table 4: Detailed breakdown of numbers in prison: Scotland
Prison population per
100,000 population14
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
118
116
122
127
130
133
134
139
142
150
151
148
154
Pre-trial detainees
Number
Percent
873
14.6
768
13.1
862
13.9
1,055
16.3
1,075
16.3
1,036
15.3
1,032
15.1
1,329
18.5
1,306
17.7
1,415
18.1
1,170
14.7
1,112
14.2
1,237
15.1
< 6 months
Number
Percent
520
8.7
491
8.4
523
8.5
521
8.1
471
7.1
531
7.8
543
7.9
568
7.9
542
7.3
501
6.4
439
5.5
426
5.4
433
5.3
6 months to < 2 years
Number
Percent
1,105
18.5
1,060
18.1
1,187
19.2
1,176
18.2
1,163
17.6
1,161
17.1
1,214
17.7
1,159
16.1
1,226
16.6
1,567
20.0
1,767
22.2
1,682
21.4
1,822
22.3
2 years to < 4 years
Number
Percent
778
13.0
776
13.2
780
12.6
814
12.6
857
13.0
884
13.0
913
13.3
959
13.3
1,058
14.3
1,099
14.0
1,211
15.2
1,183
15.1
1,172
14.3
=/> 4 years15
Number
Percent
2,409
40.3
2,392
40.8
2,408
39.0
2,437
37.8
2,522
38.2
2,568
37.9
2,490
36.3
2,368
32.9
2,350
31.9
2,369
30.3
2,394
30.1
2,396
30.5
2,439
29.8
Persons recalled from
supervision
Number
Percent
100
1.7
164
2.8
195
3.2
235
3.6
293
4.4
351
5.2
397
5.8
514
7.2
610
8.3
599
7.7
621
7.8
681
8.7
701
8.6
Convicted awaiting
sentence
Number
Percent
103
1.7
122
2.1
134
2.2
152
2.4
163
2.5
188
2.8
218
3.2
243
3.4
255
3.5
264
3.4
352
4.4
362
4.6
363
4.4
Fine default
Number
Percent
56
0.9
57
1.0
54
0.9
56
0.9
55
0.8
51
0.8
47
0.7
46
0.6
28
0.4
11
0.1
9
0.1
9
0.1
9
0.1
Others
Number
Percent
28
0.5
35
0.6
36
0.6
6
0.1
7
0.1
5
0.1
1
0.0
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
14 Calculated using ONS population estimates at 30th June each year.
15 Includes life.
Table 5: Numbers in prison: Northern Ireland16
Total population
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Flow rate17
5,186
4,416
4,865
5,309
5,455
5,912
6,472
6,061
6,185
6,087
7,016
7,816
8,004
5,361
Daily rate18
1,068
910
1,026
1,160
1,274
1,301
1,433
1,466
1,490
1,470
1,465
1,682
1,774
1,826
16 Data taken from The Northern Ireland prison population, various years, Department of Justice Northern Ireland.
17 Receptions to prisons in Northern Ireland. The dramatic fall in prison receptions between 2012 and 2013 is largely due to a decrease in fine default receptions.
A Judicial Review in early 2013 temporarily suspended fine defaulters from being sentenced to prison.
18 Average of the daily snapshots. (This applies to all data in this section.)
52 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 6: Detailed breakdown of numbers in prison: Northern Ireland
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
63
54
60
68
74
75
82
83
84
82
81
93
97
100
311
29.1
266
29.2
341
33.2
385
33.2
446
35.0
444
34.1
529
36.9
525
35.8
507
34.0
504
34.3
508
34.7
590
35.1
545
30.7
492
26.9
Percent
59
5.5
47
5.2
55
5.4
52
4.5
59
4.6
56
4.3
58
4.0
67
4.6
81
5.4
81
5.5
87
5.9
106
6.3
103
5.8
113
6.2
>6 to </= 12 months
population
Number
Percent
88
8.2
69
7.6
74
7.2
93
8.0
93
7.3
87
6.7
100
7.0
93
6.3
95
6.4
95
6.5
93
6.3
101
6.0
117
6.6
138
7.6
>12 months to </= 5
years population
Number
Percent
286
26.8
258
28.4
268
26.1
312
26.9
324
25.4
329
25.3
330
23.0
321
21.9
319
21.4
291
19.8
276
18.8
363
21.6
458
25.8
555
30.4
> 5 years (inc. life)
population
Number
Percent
295
27.6
243
26.7
265
25.8
290
25.0
318
25.0
355
27.3
386
26.9
430
29.3
459
30.8
464
31.6
458
31.3
478
28.4
496
28.0
524
28.7
Fine defaulters
Number
Percent
22
2.1
22
2.4
17
1.7
20
1.7
24
1.9
25
1.9
29
2.0
26
1.8
21
1.4
23
1.6
30
2.0
33
2.0
35
2.0
4
0.0
Non-criminal prisoners
Number
Percent
6
0.6
6
0.7
6
0.6
8
0.7
10
0.8
6
0.5
2
0.1
6
0.4
6
0.4
6
0.4
2
0.1
2
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
7
11
9
19
–
Prison population per
100,000 population19
Pre-trial detainees
20
Number
Percent
</= 6 month population Number
(missing data)
19 Calculated using ONS mid-year population estimates.
20 Northern Ireland does not break down the remand population any further. Remand prisoners include those charged with an offence and whom the courts have ruled
should be detained in custody pending trial; those whom the courts have permitted to be released on bail pending trial but have not as yet met the conditions
(usually financial) of the bail; those who had been released on bail but have subsequently been re-admitted to prison because they breached a condition of bail;
and those who have been found guilty by the court but have been ordered to be detained in custody pending sentence.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 53
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
2 Pre-trial: number remanded in custody each year21
Table 7: Pre-trial: number remanded in custody each year: England and Wales22
Pre-trial
detainees
Number23
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
7,877
7,896
7,716
8,084
8,064
8,387
8,750
8,730
8,487
8,299
7,671
7,743
8,618
14.9
14.5
15.1
14.9
15.4
16.0
15.8
15.2
14.8
13.6
13.6
–
Per 100,000 population 15.0
Table 8: Pre-trial: number remanded in custody each year: Scotland24
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Pre-trial
detainees
Number25, 26
873
768
862
1,055
1,075
1,036
1,032
1,329
1,306
1,415
1,170
1,112
1,237
Per 100,000 population 17.2
15.2
17.0
20.8
21.1
20.3
20.1
25.7
25.1
27.0
22.2
21.0
23.3
Table 9: Pre-trial: number remanded in custody each year: Northern Ireland27
Pre-trial
detainees28
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
311
266
341
385
446
444
529
525
507
504
508
590
545
492
Per 100,000 population 18.5
15.8
20.1
22.6
26.0
25.7
30.3
29.8
28.5
28.1
28.1
32.5
29.9
26.9
Number29
21 All rates calculated using the Office for National Statistics ‘Population Estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland’
(mid-year estimates, 30th June each year), reference tables. Available at: http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and
-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/index.html
22 Pre-trial detainee Figures taken from National Offender Management Statistics: 2013 Annual Tables, FigureA1.1. Ministry of Justice.
23 Figures as at 30th June each year. Data prior to 2002 is not available. Due to the introduction of a new IT system in 2010, prison population data from 2009
onwards is taken from a different source, which affects the consistency of the time series.
24 Pre-trial detainee Figures taken from Prison statistics and population projections: 2011/12; Prison statistics Scotland: 2009/10; and Prison statistics Scotland:
2008/09, Scottish Govt.
25 Figures are average daily population for financial years.
26 Large errors were found when processing prison data for 2012/13 and so Scotland has delayed publication. Statistics for 2012/13 and 2013/14 will be published
alongside each other later in 2015.
27 Pre-trial detainee Figures taken from ‘The Northern Ireland prison population in 2009’; ‘The Northern Ireland prison population in 2012’; ‘The Northern Ireland prison
population in 2013’, Department of Justice Northern Ireland.
28 Northern Ireland does not break down the remand population any further. Remand prisoners include those charged with an offence and whom the courts have ruled
should be detained in custody pending trial; those whom the courts have permitted to be released on bail pending trial but have not as yet met the conditions
(usually financial) of the bail; those who had been released on bail but have subsequently been re-admitted to prison because they breached a condition of bail;
and those who have been found guilty by the court but have been ordered to be detained pending sentence.
29 Average daily population
54 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
3 Pre-trial: number remanded on bail each year
Table 10: Pre-trial: number remanded on bail each year: England and Wales
Number remanded
on bail by courts30-36
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008-12
2013
Total
498,612
448,453
444,883
433,010
–
351,991
Males
429,946
386,824
383,769
372,702
–
298,523
Females
68,666
61,629
61,114
60,308
–
53,468
2011
2012
2013
2014
50,700
41,600
61,900
21,400
Failures to appear
37
Table 11: Pre-trial: number remanded on bail each year: Scotland
Bail orders made38-42
2004 - 05
2005 - 06
2006 - 07
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Total
52,884
56,260
62,294
60,362
52,593
47,922
46,221
47,606
44,039
47,196
Males
–
–
–
–
–
40,468
39,019
39,981
36,782
39,490
Females
–
–
–
–
–
7,448
7,201
7,620
7,254
7,703
Failures to appear43-45
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
9,174
8,046
8,105
8,208
7,305
7,123
Table 12: Pre-trial: number remanded on bail each year: Northern Ireland
Numbers granted
court-ordered
pre-trial bail46
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
9,393
9,332
10,292
10,665
11,523
11,369
10,517
9,512
Males
8,330
8,274
9,081
9,397
10,072
9,793
9,056
8,221
Females
1,053
1,054
1,200
1,263
1,439
1,571
1,457
1,288
Unknown
10
4
11
5
12
5
4
3
Defendants found guilty of at least one charge relating to breach of bail47
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
118
135
118
115
77
94
77
62
30 Defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and tried at the Crown Court who were remanded on bail by magistrates or a Judge before conviction or
acquittal
31 Includes those who failed to appear on bail
32 Figures presented may be slightly inaccurate because they do not include defendants remanded in custody at some other point during the relevant period. Published
figures cover the periods pre-conviction and post-conviction, whereas these figures only cover pre-conviction.
33 Covers the 12 months ending in June each year.
34 It is not possible to separate pre- and post-conviction bail between 2008 and 2012 because data for these years follow a different methodology that does not allow
for that separation.
35 Defendants may appear in both magistrates’ court and Crown Court counting. This is because some defendants will have been released on bail at magistrates’
courts before being committed to the Crown Court for trial, where they may also have been released on bail.
36 Figures taken from Freedom of Information response from the Ministry of Justice, FOI reference 112-15 FOI 96049.
37 12 months ending June each year for magistrates’ and Crown courts. Sourced from Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly, June editions, 2011-2014. Ministry of
Justice.
38 Excludes modifications to existing bail orders. People counted once only where more than one bail order made on same day.
39 Totals include cases where bail was granted following the lodging of an appeal.
40 The recording of bail orders has improved over time so some caution is needed when comparing changes from earlier years.
41 Bail orders granted by all court types.
42 Figures taken from Criminal Proceedings in Scotland 2013-14, Excel tables.
43 Figures refer to the number of people who have received a warrant for failure to appear while subject to a bail order in each financial year (in Sherriff and Justice of
the Peace Courts only).
44 A new criminal case management system was introduced in 2006/07 so the first year with full information available is 2008/09.
45 Figures taken from Freedom of Information Response from Scottish Court Service. Reference: RW/FOI201529.
46 Figures taken from Freedom of Information Response from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service. Reference: FOI044/15.
47 Figures taken from Freedom of Information Response from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service. Reference: FOI046/15.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 55
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
4 Number in prison serving a final sentence
Table 13: Number in prison serving a final sentence: England and Wales
2000
2001
2002
Daily rate
–
–
57,306 59,437 60,976 62,257 63,493 65,602 68,234 68,560 71,000 71,964 73,564 70,913 71,481
First receptions
93,671 91,976 94,807 93,495 95,161 92,452 90,038 91,736 100,348 94,964 –
90,955 86,479 82,305 78,488
Daily rate per 100,000
–
128.1
–
2003
108.9
112.4
2004
2005
114.7
2006
116.2
117.7
2007
120.6
2008
124.4
2009
2010
124.1
2011
127.5
2012
2013
130.0
124.5
2014
–
Table 14: Number in prison serving a final sentence: Scotland
1999 - 00 2000 - 01 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12
Daily rate
4968
4940
5147
5239
5361
5546
5604
5614
5814
6146
6441
6377
6576
Rate per 100,000
98.1
97.5
101.6
103.4
105.4
108.5
109.2
108.6
111.7
117.5
122.4
120.3
123.8
Receptions
20336
19926
20328
20957
20437
19652
19488
20430
18229
16566
15824
14943
15331
Table 15: Number in prison serving a final sentence: Northern Ireland
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Daily rate
767
818
851
902
935
976
960
955
1090
1228
1334
Rate per 100,000
45.0
47.7
49.3
51.7
53.1
54.9
53.5
52.9
60.1
67.3
72.9
Receptions
2753
2909
3002
3255
3094
3208
3124
3682
4239
4545
2477
56 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
5 Community sentences
Table 16: Community sentences: England and Wales48
2005
Community People serving
order49-52
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Flow 53,248
111,752 117,860 120,743 122,796 118,696 112,571 103,759 99,166
94,878
Daily 46,846
93,895
101,858 101,153 97,481
91,776
84,168
76,231
73,567
71,055
174.0
187.3
184.4
164.8
149.8
134.8
129.2
–
Flow 45,832
95,111
99,573
101,552 103,074 99,598
94,046
86,708
82,448
78,222
Daily 40,356
80,652
86,952
86,066
82,682
78,077
71,243
64,669
62,211
59,962
Flow 7,416
16,641
18,287
19,191
19,722
19,098
18,525
17,051
16,718
16,656
Daily 6,490
13,243
14,906
15,087
14,799
13,699
12,925
11,562
11,356
11,093
Ran full course –
–
27,525
(39%)
53,107
(47%)
60,961
(49%)
67,877
(52%)
69,151
(53%)
69,178
(55%)
64,282
(55%)
53,165
(54%)
48,912
(55%)
Good progress –
–
9,175
(13%)
10,895
(10%)
13,685
(11%)
15,664
(12%)
15,657
(12%)
13,836
(11%)
12,856
(11%)
12,799
(13%)
10,672
(12%)
16,938
(24%)
25,007
(22%)
23,638
(19%)
20,885
(16%)
19,571
(15%)
17,609
(14%)
16,363
(14%)
12,799
(13%)
10,672
(12%)
Conviction –
of an offence –
9,881
(14%)
13,462
(12%)
13,685
(11%)
13,053
(10%)
13,047
(10%)
12,578
(10%)
12,856
(11%)
11,814
(12%)
10,671
(12%)
Other reasons –
–
7,058
(10%)
11,358
(10%)
12,441
(10%)
13,053
(10%)
13,047
(10%)
12,578
(10%)
10,519
(9%)
7,876
(8%)
7,114
(8%)
70,577
113,829 124,411 130,533 130,474 125,778 116,876 98,453
Rate/100,000 87.4
Males
Females
Revocations53, 54
2006
Failure to comply –
with requirements –
N for revocations (100%) –
176.5
88,930
48 All figures from Offender Management Statistics quarterly. Probation Annual Tables 2013, Ministry of Justice.
49 These community sentences were introduced in 2005.
50 All flow rates are counted as people starting supervision by the probation service in a given year. The Ministry of Justice informed us that information of the total
number of people supervised across a whole year was not held centrally. The total number of people supervised in a year will be higher as it includes people who
started a supervision in a previous year but is yet to expire.
51 All daily rates are counted as people supervised by the probation service as at 31st December each year.
52 Each person is counted once for each type of supervision received in the period or at 31st December.
53 These are numbers of revocations occurring over a whole year.
54 It has only been possible to compare percentages over time from 2008 onwards, as before then not enough time had elapsed for all orders to run their full course.
These orders were introduced in April 2005.
Table 17: Community Order requirements: England and Wales55
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
All Community Orders (100%)
96,133
211,905
223,511
226,234
231,444
223,227
211,335
192,732
173,766
168,909
Unpaid Work
29,947
(31%)
66,937
(32%)
74,779
(33%)
74,629
(33%)
76,699
(33%)
73,797
(33%)
69,674
(33%)
61,639
(32%)
51,130
(29%)
48,683
(29%)
Supervision
34,741
(36%)
76,234
(36%)
78,102
(35%)
77,777
(34%)
77,769
(34%)
72,998
(33%)
67,332
(32%)
61,434
(32%)
57,856
(33%)
55,095
(33%)
Specified Activity
2,638
(3%)
7,706
(4%)
8,763
(4%)
9,639
(4%)
13,476
(6%)
15,189
(7%)
19,663
(9%)
21,421
(11%)
20,441
(12%)
16,500
(10%)
Curfew
3,209
(3%)
9,615
(5%)
12,608
(6%)
15,526
(7%)
16,479
(7%)
17,476
(8%)
17,279
(8%)
14,930
(8%)
12,665
(7%)
16,688
(10%)
Accredited Programme
17,440
(18%)
34,287
(16%)
30,143
(13%)
26,483
(12%)
23,442
(10%)
20,444
(9%)
16,448
(8%)
13,430
(7%)
12,864
(7%)
12,575
(7%)
Drug treatment
5,853
(6%)
11,895
(6%)
12,145
(5%)
13153
(6%)
12087
(5%)
11996
(5%)
9866
(5%)
9290
(5%)
9138
(5%)
8,396
(5%)
Alcohol treatment
1356 (1%)
2439 (1%) 3267 (1%)
4664 (2%)
6485 (3%) 5949 (3%)
5873 (3%) 5971 (3%)
5893 (3%)
5,415 (3%)
Attendance Centre
94 (0%)
287 (0%)
430 (0%)
523 (0%)
787 (0%)
1367 (1%) 1338 (1%)
1170 (1%)
949 (1%)
Prohibited Activity
130 (0%)
483 (0%)
847 (0%)
1116 (0%)
1376 (1%) 1491 (1%)
1258 (1%) 931 (0%)
762 (0%)
2,036 (1%)
Exclusion
195 (0%)
510 (0%)
845 (0%)
1029 (0%)
1106 (0%) 1135 (1%)
1021 (0%) 962 (0%)
712 (0%)
1,235 (1%)
Residential
268 (0%)
762 (0%)
930 (0%)
956 (0%)
929 (0%)
1062 (0%)
899 (0%)
816 (0%)
522 (0%)
665 (0%)
Mental Health
262 (0%)
750 (0%)
652 (0%)
739 (0%)
809 (0%)
743 (0%)
655 (0%)
570 (0%)
613 (0%)
672 (0%)
947 (0%)
55 Sharp increases from 2005 reflects the fact that these orders were introduced for offences committed after 4th April 2005.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 57
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 18: Scotland:56,57 Community Payback Orders and legacy orders58
Total in existence
59
2005
2006
Total
23,592
–
male
20,139
–
3,453
–
Total
13,738
17,010
male
11,598
14,344
2,140
2,666
female
Total in force on
31st March 2013
female
56 All figures are for financial years.
57 Data on cases of different orders sourced from Criminal Justice Social Work Statistics, Scottish Govt. Data on costs sourced from Cost of the criminal justice system
in Scotland, Scottish Govt.
58 Community Payback Orders replaced community service orders, probation orders and supervised attendance orders for offences committed after 1 February 2011.
Table 19: Scotland: Commencements60
Community payback order61
Community service orders
2006 - 07
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Total
–
–
–
–
–
10,228
16,057
18,599
male
–
–
–
–
–
8,826
13,678
15,741
female
–
–
–
–
–
1,402
2,379
2,858
Total
5,937
6,202
6,437
6,429
5,940
3,044
693
227
male
5,334
5,512
5,668
5,502
5,112
2,463
490
–
603
690
769
927
828
581
203
–
Total
8,404
8,706
9,179
8,838
8,136
3,040
514
138
male
6,903
7,062
7,535
7,170
6,642
2,400
402
–
female
1,501
1,644
1,644
1,668
1,494
640
112
–
Total
3,047
4,438
4,306
3,859
3,307
2,877
1,752
779
male
2,505
3,693
3,650
3,345
2,900
2,531
1,540
–
542
745
656
514
407
346
212
–
Total
17,388
19,346
19,922
19,126
17,383
19,189
19,016
19,743
male
14,742
16,267
16,853
16,017
14,654
16,220
16,110
–
2,646
3,079
3,069
3,109
2,729
2,969
2,906
–
female
Probation orders
Supervised attendance orders
female
Total orders
female
60 Counts orders commenced so will double count individuals subject to more than one type of order in a given year.
61 Information on orders commenced was collected from local authorities from 2011-12 onward. Figures from the Scottish Court Service suggest around 300
community payback orders were imposed in 2010-11.
58 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 20: Scotland: Revocations
Community
payback
orders
Community
service
orders
2006 - 07
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Order successfully completed/early discharge
–
–
–
–
–
1801
(68.9%)
6844
(68.6%)
11,062
(72.2%)
Revoked due to review
–
–
–
–
–
104 (4%)
518 (5.2%) 766 (5%)
Revoked due to breach
–
–
–
–
–
436
(16.7%)
1758
(17.6%)
Transfer out of area
–
–
–
–
–
112 (4.3%) 381 (3.8%) 524 (3.4%)
Death
–
–
–
–
–
31 (1.2%)
77 (0.8%)
Other
–
–
–
–
–
132 (5%)
405 (4.1%) 408 (2.7%)
3569
(65.7%)
3762
(64.6%)
4375
(63.6%)
4690
(69.6%)
4499
(74%)
3503
(74.4%)
1448
(71%)
Order successfully completed/early discharge
–
353 (6.5%) 271 (4.7%) 258 (3.7%) 340 (5%)
196 (3.2%) 181 (3.8%) 129 (6.3%) –
Revoked due to breach
1036
(19.1%)
909
(14.9%)
1346
(23.1%)
1537
(22.3%)
1239
(18.4%)
722
(15.3%)
331
(16.2%)
–
285 (5.2%) 244 (4.2%) 288 (4.2%) 223 (3.3%) 196 (3.2%) 133 (2.8%) 53 (2.6%)
–
Death
30 (0.6%)
12 (0.6%)
–
Other
159 (2.9%) 179 (3.1%) 387 (5.6%) 211 (3.1%) 256 (4.2%) 151 (3.2%) 64 (3.1%)
–
Order successfully completed/early discharge
4065
(60.2%)
3998
(58.4%)
4236
(56.6%)
4302
(57%)
4716
(59.8%)
4442
(67.1%)
2499
(74.8%)
–
Breach – non-compliance
940
(13.9%)
1098
(16%)
1110
(14.8%)
1026
(13.6%)
891
(11.3%)
594 (9%)
345
(10.3%)
–
Breach - further offence
735
(10.9%)
699
(10.2%)
884
(11.8%)
894
(11.8%)
783 (9.9%) 565 (8.5%) 170 (5.1%) –
134 (2%)
149 (2.2%) 199 (2.7%) 134 (1.8%) 168 (2.1%) 106 (1.6%) 51 (1.5%)
–
325 (4.8%) 293 (4.3%) 335 (4.5%) 331 (4.4%) 363 (4.6%) 191 (2.9%) 98 (2.9%)
–
Death
106 (1.6%) 86 (1.3%)
–
Other
450 (6.7%) 526 (7.7%) 613 (8.2%) 771
(10.2%)
856
(10.9%)
647 (9.8%) 148 (4.4%) –
1661
(61%)
1685
(56.7%)
2410
(60.6%)
1951
(60.1%)
1719
(65.1%)
Revoked due to review
282
(10.4%)
302
(10.2%)
212 (5.3%) 221 (6.5%) 182 (5.6%) 195 (7.4%) 178 (8.4%) –
Revoked due to breach
629
(23.1%)
797
(26.8%)
1146
(28.8%)
797
(23.3%)
776
(23.9%)
556
(21.1%)
457
(21.5%)
–
Transfer out of area
54 (2%)
79 (2.7%)
79 (2%)
93 (2.7%)
88 (2.7%)
54 (2%)
52 (2.4%)
–
Death
10 (0.4%)
14 (0.5%)
23 (0.6%)
17 (0.5%)
23 (0.7%)
14 (0.5%)
10 (0.5%)
–
Other
88 (3.2%)
93 (3.1%)
106 (2.7%) 104 (3%)
226 (7%)
101 (3.8%) 93 (4.4%)
–
Breach - non-compliance and further offence
Transfer out of area
Supervised
attendance
orders
99 (0.6%)
Revoked due to review
Transfer out of area
Probation
orders
2,468
(16.1%)
Order successfully completed
23 (0.4%)
38 (0.6%)
34 (0.5%)
111 (1.5%) 93 (1.2%)
2182
(63.9%)
26 (0.4%)
16 (0.3%)
106 (1.3%) 74 (1.1%)
28 (0.8%)
1338
(62.9%)
–
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 59
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 21: Scotland: Community payback order requirements
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Unpaid work or other activity
7776 (76%)
12,785 (79.6%)
14,879 (80%)
Offender supervision
6382 (62.4%)
8,816 (54.9%)
9,413 (50.6%)
Conduct
2360 (23.1%)
1,610 (10%)
1,147 (6.2%)
Programme
809 (7.9%)
1,047 (6.5%)
1,178 (6.3%)
Alcohol treatment
536 (5.2%)
398 (2.5%)
400 (2.2%)
Compensation
350 (3.4%)
609 (3.8%)
606 (3.3%)
Drug treatment
236 (2.3%)
183 (1.1%)
167 (0.9%)
Mental health treatment
74 (0.7%)
97 (0.6%)
65 (0.9%)
Residence
51
37
45
62
62 The fall in the use of the conduct requirement after 2011-12 is due to a 2012 appeal court judgement that conduct requirements must be specific and include
more than general conditions to stay out of trouble or to refrain from committing another criminal offence. This will have an impact on the level of supervision
requirements as orders with a conduct requirement should also include supervision.
Table 22: Scotland: Costs of Community Payback Orders, Community Service Orders, Supervised Attendance Orders and Probation Orders63
Volume
Total Expenditure
Unit Cost64
19,576 Orders commenced
£37,374,215
£1,909
63 Refers to unit cost figures from 2013/14.
64 The unit cost is calculated by dividing total recorded expenditure on Community Payback Orders, Community Service Orders, Probation Orders and Supervised
Attendance Orders across the 8 CJAs by the volume of those disposals. The unit cost does not include the costs of delivering some services which may be
accessed by offenders as a consequence of requirements imposed with these orders.
Table 23: Scotland: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders65
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Total
1,333
–
male
1,064
–
female
269
–
Total
747
706
male
601
569
female
146
137
Total in existence66
Total in force on
31st March 2013
65 Figures include DTTO IIs, which have been piloted in the City of Edinburgh, Midlothian and East Lothian areas since June 2008.
66 This information can be obtained from the unit level returns Scottish Justice Analytical Services received from local authorities for the first time in 2012-13.
This constitutes a proper flow rate.
Table 24: Scotland: Commencements67
2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
Total
526
599
673
601
752
739
661
557
640
620
male
437
494
552
461
576
566
533
455
512
497
89
105
121
140
176
173
128
102
128
123
Successfully completed/
early discharge
120
(38.1%)
186
(40%)
208
(38.9%)
183
(37.3%)
215
(39.7%)
263
(44.7%)
303
(46%)
339
(53.6%)
310
(52.6%)
345
(52.2%)
Revoked due to review
32
(10.2%)
81
(17.4%)
76
(14.2%)
68
(13.8%)
83
(15.3%)
119
(20.2%)
115
(17.5%)
90
(14.2%)
135
(23.3%)
134
(20.3%)
Revoked due to breach
133
(42.2%)
154
(33.1%)
197
(36.8%)
173
(35.2%)
193
(35.6%)
144
(24.5%)
185
(28.1%)
127
(20.1%)
101
(17.4%)
149
(22.5%)
0 (0%)
4 (0.9%)
2 (0.4%)
7 (1.4%)
8 (1.5%)
5 (0.9%)
6 (0.9%)
41 (6.5%)
11 (1.9%)
6 (0.9%)
Death
1 (0.3%)
4 (0.9%)
1 (0.2%)
2 (0.4%)
3 (0.6%)
4 (0.7%)
6 (0.9%)
4 (0.6%)
6 (1%)
8 (1.2%)
Other
29 (9.2%)
36 (7.7%)
51 (9.5%)
58 (11.8%) 40 (7.4%)
53 (9%)
43 (6.5%)
32 (5.1%)
22 (3.8%)
19 (2.9%)
female
Revocations
Transfer out of area
67 Counts orders commenced so will double count individuals subject to more than one type of order in a given year.
60 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 25: Scotland: Cost of DTTOs68
Services/Disposals
Volume
Total Expenditure
Unit Cost69
DTTOs (Including Drug Courts)70
614 Orders commenced
£5,897,261
£9,605
68 Refers to unit cost figures from 2013/14.
69 The unit cost is calculated by dividing total recorded expenditure on DTTOs across the 8 CJAs by the volume of DTTOs commenced.
70 Drugs courts issue disposals other than DTTOs. Taking all drugs court expenditure into account in calculating the unit cost of a DTTO is therefore likely to overestimate the unit cost of a DTTO. Conversely, excluding the costs of drugs courts entirely is likely to understate the unit cost.
Table 26: Scotland: Restriction of Liberty Orders71 – People with a charge proved in the Scottish courts given a Restriction of Liberty Order as a main penalty72
2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
Restriction
of liberty
order
Total
1097
1136
1179
1155
1143
931
831
845
919
1074
male
–
–
–
–
1016
828
742
727
765
–
female
–
–
–
–
127
103
89
118
145
–
71 There is only information on RLOs handed out in the Scottish courts in total for 2004/5 to 2013/14, and by gender for 2008/9 to 2012/13.
72 Data sourced from ‘Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts’, ‘Criminal Proceedings in Scotland’ and Freedom of Information Response from the Justice Analytics
Service, FOI reference: Foi/14/01825, Scottish Govt.
Table 27: Scotland: Cost of RLOs73
Services/Disposals
Volume
Total Expenditure
Unit Cost74
Electronic Monitoring75
3,929 new reports
£2,884,643
£734
73 Refers to unit cost figures from 2013/14.
74 The unit cost is calculated by dividing total recorded expenditure on electronic monitoring by the volume individuals monitored.
75 This section shows the unit cost of electronic monitoring which is issued in the following circumstances: Court orders (Restriction of Liberty Orders and as a sanction
for breaching a community payback order); Early release from prison (Home Detention Curfew for short term prisoners and Parole Licence for long term prisoners
(over 4 years sentence)); Movement Restriction Condition as part of Intensive Support and Monitoring (imposed by children hearings); and as part of a DTTO.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 61
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 28: Northern Ireland: Probation Orders, Combination Orders and Community Service Orders76
Probation
Order
No. of people
given new orders77
Flow rate
78
Daily rate
79
One year breach rate
80,81
Combination No. of people
given new orders74
Order
Flow rate
75
Daily rate
76
One year breach rate
77,78
Community No. of people
Service
given new orders74
Order
Flow rate
75
Daily rate
76
One year breach rate
77,78
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Total
1318
1274
1274
1350
1335
1177
1209
male
1131
1056
1064
1132
1081
950
958
female
187
218
210
218
254
227
251
Total
2784
2754
2740
2884
2977
2830
2694
male
2362
2331
2304
2440
2488
2334
2192
female
422
423
436
444
489
496
502
Total
1503
1500
1594
1702
1698
1523
1517
Per/100,000
85.3
84.3
88.9
94.3
93.6
83.5
82.9
male
1293
1266
1357
1453
1415
1263
1258
female
210
234
237
249
283
260
259
Total
–
–
–
22%
24%
24%
–
Total
206
204
214
308
315
315
280
male
189
190
206
283
287
292
256
female
17
14
8
25
28
23
24
Total
415
420
438
559
635
662
637
male
379
388
411
523
583
606
582
female
36
32
27
36
52
56
55
Total
213
212
252
311
332
346
342
male
196
195
241
286
298
317
317
female
17
17
11
25
34
29
25
Per/100,000
12.1
11.9
14.1
17.2
18.3
19.0
18.7
Total
–
–
–
39%
31%
34%
–
Total
756
958
1156
1280
1505
1409
1313
male
679
840
1019
1125
1285
1212
1135
female
77
118
137
155
220
197
178
Total
1280
1464
1752
2014
2270
2329
2126
male
1154
1303
1561
1780
1969
2007
1841
female
126
161
191
234
301
322
285
Total
482
601
740
806
915
841
760
male
444
548
659
719
793
735
670
female
38
53
81
87
122
106
90
Per 100,000
27.4
33.8
41.3
44.7
50.4
46.1
41.5
Total
–
–
–
28%
28%
27%
–
76 Figures taken from Freedom of Information response from the Probation Board of Northern Ireland. FOI reference: 023.60.14.
77 Counted as the number of people given new Probation Orders, Community Service Orders or Combination Orders in a given year.
78 Total number of people supervised at any point during the year under Combination Orders, Probation Orders, or Community Service Orders in a given year. Includes
people whose order commenced in a different year but has not yet expired.
79 Number of people supervised at a point in time (end of financial year, 31st March) under Probation Orders, Community Service Orders or Combination Orders.
80 Figures taken from ‘Statistical Brief – Analysis of Breach Rates: 2012/13’, Probation Board for Northern Ireland.
81 An order is deemed to have breached when an order contact meeting type of ‘Decision to Breach’, ‘Breach Summons Lodged’, or ‘Breach Warrant Lodged’ is
recorded on the PIMS (PBNI case management system) referral within one year of the start date of the order. The rates presented in this figure should therefore be
described as ‘one-year breach rates’. It is not possible at this stage to include either the reason for the initiation of breach proceedings or the outcome of the
proceedings due to the way this information is recorded on PIMS.
62 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 29: Northern Ireland: Cost of Probation Orders, Combination Orders and Community Service orders82
Unit cost
Community Service Order
Probation Order
Combination Order
£2,000
£4,200
£4,200
82 Refers to costs in 2010 taken from DOJNI (2011) ‘Consultation on a review of community sentences’. Belfast: DOJNI.
Table 30: Northern Ireland: Number of people given an additional requirement where they started a Combination Order or Probation Order by additional requirement83, 84
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Alcohol Management Programme
172 (39.4%)
180 (29.8%)
219 (33.4%)
263 (34.5%)
154 (26.9%)
169 (29.4%)
182 (32.1%)
Anger Management and Cognitive
Self Change programmes
159 (36.5%)
150 (24.8%)
121 (18.4%)
167 (21.9%)
133 (23.2%)
106 (18.5%)
70 (12.3%)
Community Sex Offender
Groupwork Programme
30 (6.9%)
33 (5.5%)
22 (3.4%)
24 (3.1%)
36 (6.3%)
47 (8.2%)
49 (8.6%)
Integrated Domestic Abuse
Programme
66 (15.1%)
86 (14.2%)
75 (11.4%)
79 (10.4%)
57 (9.9%)
67 (11.7%)
47 (8.3%)
Probation Approved
Accommodation
9 (2.1%)
15 (2.5%)
24 (3.7%)
24 (3.1%)
22 (3.8%)
16 (2.8%)
14 (2.5%)
Resolve85
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
33 (5.8%)
Think First
0 (0%)
141 (23.3%)
195 (29.7%)
206 (27%)
171 (29.8%)
169 (29.4%)
134 (23.6%)
Thinking Skills86
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
38 (6.7%)
Total
436
605
656
763
573
574
567
83
84
85
86
Sourced from Freedom of Information response from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. FOI reference: 023.60.14.
Figure excludes for example, additional licence conditions and interventions recommended by the Supervising Officer during the period of community supervision.
This is a new programme.
The ‘Thinking Skills’ programme has now replaced the ‘Think First’ programme.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 63
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
6 Suspended sentences
Table 31: England and Wales:87 Suspended sentences
Suspended
sentence
order88-91
People serving
Males
Females
Revocations
92, 93
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Flow
5,848
32,727
44,421
45,502
46,897
47,902
47,521
45,275
43,134
44,944
Daily
5,383
28,364
42,912
43,977
43,615
43,561
41,766
38,452
38,227
39,251
Per 100,000
10.9
60.7
81.7
83.0
84.9
86.0
84.6
80.0
75.7
–
Flow
45,832
95,111
99,573
101,552 103,074 99,598
94,046
86,708
82,448
38,181
Daily
4,727
24,698
37,091
37,759
37,264
37,450
35,673
32,747
32,711
33,657
Flow
723
4281
5,951
6,476
6,823
6,694
7,046
6,803
6,234
6,763
Daily
656
3,666
5,821
6,218
6,351
6,111
6,093
5,705
5,516
5,594
Ran full course
–
2,929
(31%)
12,910
(46%)
20,452
(50%)
24,081
(55%)
25,344
(56%)
26,865
(57%)
26,372
(57%)
22,631
(55%)
55%
Good progress
–
530
(6%)
1,632
(6%)
4,090
(10%)
4,378
(10%)
4,892
(11%)
4,713
(10%)
5,358
(12%)
5,035
(12%)
13%
Failure to comply with
requirements
–
2,646
(28%)
6,131
(22%)
6,136
(15%)
5,254
(12%)
5,455
(12%)
5,185
(11%)
5,156
(11%)
4,026
(10%)
9%
Conviction of an offence
–
2,308
(25%)
5,088
(18%)
6,954
(17%)
7,005
(16%)
6,731
(15%)
7,070
(15%)
6,971
(15%)
6,377
(15%)
16%
Other reasons
–
996
(11%)
2,508
(9%)
3,272
(8%)
3,065
(7%)
3,036
(7%)
3,299
(7%)
2,595
(6%)
3,084
(7%)
7%
N for revocations (100%)
–
9,409
28,269
40,904
43,783
45,458
47,132
46,452
41,153
38,196
87 Figures taken from Offender Management Statistics Quarterly. Probation Annual Tables 2013, Ministry of Justice.
88 Introduced in 2005.
89 Flow rates are counted as people starting supervision by the probation service in a given year. The Ministry of Justice informed us that information of the total
number of people supervised across a whole year was not held centrally. The total number of people supervised in a year will be higher as it includes people who
started a supervision in a previous year but is yet to expire.
90 Daily rates are counted as people supervised by the probation service as at 31st December of each year.
91 Each person is counted once for each type of supervision received in the period or at 31st December.
92 These are numbers of revocations occurring over a whole year.
93 It has only been possible to compare percentages over time from 2008 onwards, as before then not enough time had elapsed for all orders to run their full course.
These orders were introduced in April 2005.
Table 32: Convictions where disposal included a suspended custodial element at courts in Northern Ireland94, 95
Suspended
sentence
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
1,701
1,591
1,633
1,898
2,175
2,264
2,336
2,970
2,777
2,993
3,503
4,151
4,526
4,408
male
1,565
1,445
1,489
1,705
1,952
2,008
2,094
2,625
2,482
2,685
3,092
3,613
3,881
3,795
136
146
144
193
223
256
242
345
295
308
411
538
645
613
female
94 Data collected on the principal offence rule; only the most serious offence for which an offender is convicted is included.
95 Data provided by the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland via email.
Table 33: Structured deferred sentences, Scotland96, 97
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
20010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Total
4,659
2,819
768
493
586
614
male
3,634
2,172
529
329
361
398
female
1,025
647
239
164
225
216
96 A new criminal case management system was introduced by the Scottish Court Service during 2006/07 so the first year with full information available is 2008 - 09.
97 Data taken from a freedom of Information response from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. FOI reference: RW\FOI201549.
64 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
7 Post-release measures
i) Parole
Table 34: Parole – England and Wales98
Parole releases99
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
20011 - 12
2013 - 13
2013 - 14
2,491
2,788
2,790
3,777
3,268
98 Figures taken from Parole Board for England and Wales Annual Report and Accounts 2013/14.
99 Includes oral and paper review, recall and advice hearings for determinate, life and IPP sentenced prisoners which resulted in a release outcome.
Table 35: Parole – Scotland100
Parole releases
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
362
336
314
297
323
236
245
100 Figures taken from ‘Parole Board for Scotland Annual Reports’.
Table 36: Parole – Number of people on PBNI caseload serving licences in the community at 31 March 2007 to 31 March 2014101, 102
Numbers supervised
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Female
<4
<4
<4
<4
4
8
21
31
Male
74
83
94
118
218
366
560
769
Total
–
–
–
–
222
374
581
800
101 This includes: Life Sentence, Article 26 Licence, Determinate Custodial Sentence (DCS), Extended Custodial Sentences (ECS), Indeterminate Custodial Sentences
(ICS) and GB Transfers. The increase is due to the introduction of the DCS, ECS and ICS licences (ref Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008)
102 Data taken from Freedom of Information response from the Probation Board of Northern Ireland, FOI reference: 023.11.15.
ii) Home Detention Curfew
Table 37: Home detention curfew: England and Wales103
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
No. released on HDC
15,511 13,648 20,456 21,188 19,294 17,296 13,666 11,428 11,721 11,534 12,250 12,727 12,803 10,419
Average daily population
(at end of year)104
1,700
No. of males released
14,006 12,120 18,509 19,050 17,159 15,392 12,122 10,108 10,239 10,164 10,770 11,151 11,142 9,051
No. of females released
1,505
1,700
1,528
3,100
1,947
3,700
2,138
3,400
2,135
3,300
1,904
2,500
1,544
2,400
1,320
2,600
1,482
2,500
1,370
2,800
1,480
2,800
1,576
2,800
1,661
2,500
1,368
103 Data taken from Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2004, Home Office, and Offender Management Statistics, 2013 annual edition, Ministry of Justice
104 The figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.
Table 38: Home detention curfew: Revocations – England and Wales
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
769
673
1,479
2,716
3,003
2,627
2,184
1,654
1,442
1,441
1,154
1,179
924
701
Breach of HDC conditions
–
365
815
1,470
1,710
1,722
1,522
1,227
1,062
930
625
718
742
634
Charged with new offence
–
110
218
402
464
327
230
155
169
228
205
221
47
1
Breach of non-HDC licence
conditions
–
10
57
139
173
166
124
96
64
95
114
96
8
0
Other
–
188
389
705
656
412
308
176
147
188
210
144
127
66
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 65
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
Table 39: Home detention curfew: Scotland105, 106
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
No. released on HDC
2,082
2,056
1,885
1,820
1,942
No. men released on HDC
1,857
1,804
1,674
1,614
1,698
No. women released on HDC
225
252
211
206
244
Average daily population
310
370
373
358
365
Average men daily population
274
325
333
320
323
Average women daily population
36
45
40
38
42
107
105 HDC was implemented in 2006 in Scotland. These figures include all those aged over 16.
106 Figures taken from Prison Statistics and Population Projections Scotland 2011-12, Cost of the criminal justice system in Scotland dataset and a Freedom of
Information response from the Scottish Prison Service, FOI reference: FOI 14274.
107 Figures exclude prisoners recorded as unlawfully at large. This is due to a time lag in recording the outcome of recall procedures in certain cases, which results in
an over-estimate of the HDC population if these cases are included. Figures for 2010-11 have been revised upward by about 15% as a result of cleaning
outstanding cases recorded as unlawfully at large.
Table 40: Recalls to custody from HDC: Scotland
Total108
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
511
458
394
381
381
108 Figures for 2007-08 were revised in the 2009-10 data release as a result of technical difficulties in recording the outcome of recall procedures in certain cases.
The revised figures are about 10% lower than those published in the original 2007-08 release.
Table 41: Reasons for recall to custody from HDC: Scotland109
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Assault (or threat) on contractor
1
2
1
3
–
1
1
1
Breach of licence conditions
109
127
109
79
95
91
82
79
Cancelled breach - appeal
20
38
27
16
15
9
13
14
Cumulative breach of curfew
42
32
14
22
19
18
8
13
False breach (SPS/Serco error)
8
16
17
13
3
10
8
10
Intentional damage to EM equipment
64
60
52
44
29
41
35
33
Minor breach of curfew (>2<6 hrs)
9
7
4
3
6
2
1
4
New warrant served
21
42
43
48
37
41
34
28
Presence at a restricted location
–
–
1
4
1
1
–
1
Preventing installation of EM equipment
22
20
10
15
19
19
10
11
Preventing maintenance of EM equipment
1
2
–
3
–
2
1
1
Serious breach of curfew (>6 hrs)
201
190
149
131
145
128
106
119
Withdrawal of consent (householder)
26
30
29
28
35
25
18
20
109 Figures are for calendar years so do not correspond to data on total recalls to custody.
Table 42: Scotland: Cost of HDC110
Services/Disposals
Electronic Monitoring112
Home Detention Curfew Reports
113
Volume
Total Expenditure
Unit Cost111
3,929 new reports
£2,884,643
£734
2,919 Reports written
£415,744
£142
110 Refers to unit cost figures from 2013/14.
111 The unit cost is calculated by dividing the total expenditure over the volume.
112 This section shows the unit cost of electronic monitoring which is issued in the following circumstances: Court orders (Restriction of Liberty Orders and as a sanction
for breaching a community payback order); Early release from prison (Home Detention Curfew for short term prisoners and Parole Licence for long term prisoners
(over 4 years sentence)); Movement Restriction Condition as part of Intensive Support and Monitoring (imposed by children hearings); and as part of a DTTO.
113 This only represents the cost of the report writing. The cost of the Electronic Monitoring element of the Home Detention Curfew is £734.
66 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
iii) Post-release supervision
Table 43: Post-release supervision – Number of people under post release supervision December 2002 to December 2014 in England and Wales114-116
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Number of people under post
release supervision
22,000
21,106
22,739
25,603
26,096
28,721
32,220
34,881
37,229
40,049
42,162
39,565
39,270
Number of men under post
release supervision
20,777
19,839
21,319
24,095
24,550
26,930
30,190
32,656
34,835
37,487
39,558
37,255
37,056
Number of women under post
release supervision
1,223
1,267
1,420
1,508
1,546
1,791
2,030
2,225
2,394
2,562
2,604
2,310
2,214
114 Data taken from Offender Management Statistics, Ministry of Justice, annual editions.
115 Each person is counted only once in the total even if they were subject to several types of sentence at the year end.
116 Reliable information on the probation caseload is only available from 2002 onwards.
Table 44: Post-release supervision – Number of people under post-release supervision by the PBNI at 31 March each year in Northern Ireland-117
Post-release supervision
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
722
649
648
765
925
11,048
117 Figures taken from PBNI Caseload Statistics 2014/15, Probation Board for Northern Ireland.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 67
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
8 Probation resources
Table 45: Probation resources – England and Wales
2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
Annual cash
terms budget (£)118-121
596,395 609,976 810,827 881,071 821,024 827,300 845,000 897,000 899,000 875,000 821,000 853,000 864,211
Annual real
terms budget (£)122
799,189 796,428 1,037,553 1,092,977 990,809 972,025 964,601 998,886 975,880 924,253 851,960 871,110 864,211
118 Figures for 2001/02 to 2006/07 taken from ‘Probation resources, staffing and workloads 2001-2008’ by M Oldfield, and R Grimshaw
119 Figures for 2007/08 to 2011/12 taken from written question to the Secretary of State for Justice by Sadiq Khan on 23rd January 2013:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-01-23d.136548.h
120 Figures for 2012/13 taken from National Audit Office (2014) ‘Probation Landscape Review’
121 Figure for 2013/14 calculated from individual Probation Trust annual reports and accounts: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/probation-trust-annualreport-and-accounts-2013-2014
122 Calculated using HM Treasury GDP deflators at market prices and money GDP, last updated 23rd December 2014.
Table 46: Probation resources – Scotland
Expenditure (£m)123-126
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
116.35
–
108.9
123 Refers to cost of Criminal Justice Social Work Service
124 Expenditure is in cash terms
125 Figure is made up of the Criminal Justice Social Work Service expenditure in each Community Justice Authority, and offender services expenditure shown in the
Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts
126 Figures taken from Scottish Government (2014 and 2015) Cost of the criminal justice system in Scotland dataset, Figure One
Table 47: Probation resources – Northern Ireland
2004 - 05
2005 - 06
2006 - 07
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
Annual cash
terms budget (£)127
15,106
17,105
17,711
17,768
18,918
20,911
14,993
21,421
23,020
22,908
Annual real
terms budget (£)128
18,739
20,642
20,809
20,283
21,067
22,699
15,837
22,229
23,509
22,908
127 Figures taken from Probation Board for Northern Ireland annual reports and accounts 2005/06 to 2013/14. Figures prior to this are not available.
128 Calculated using HM Treasury GDP deflators at market prices and money GDP, last updated 23rd December 2014.
68 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
9 Number of probation officers since 2000
Table 48: Number of probation officers since 2000 – England and Wales
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Frontline staff129-133 8,457
9,594
10,515 13,017 13,322 14,470 14,654 12,824 12,097 –
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
10,235 9,787
8,944
8,775
8,482
129 Includes Senior Practitioners, Probation Officers, Probation Service Officers, Trainee Probation Officers (certainly for 2007-2013) employed by the probation service
as at 31st December each year (end of quarter 3).
130 From 2000-2008 the number of frontline staff is probably slightly overestimated. This is because the workforce reports did not break the job groups down into job
functions, meaning a very small number of staff who work in ‘corporate services’ are included in the Figures for those years (overestimated by approx. 80 people).
131 For 2014 this is calculated as staff in pay band 5, pay band 4 (PQF and non-PQF qualified) and pay band 3 (PSO and non-PSO) working in ‘offender management’,
‘interventions’ and ‘other agencies/services’ functions within Community Rehabilitation Companies, in addition to Probation Officer grade staff working in the
National Probation Service (both as at 31st December 2014).
132 Workforce data for 2009 is not available.
133 Staff numbers for 2010 to 2013 taken from ‘Probation Service Quarterly Reports’, Q. 3 of each year. Figures from 2000 to 2008 taken from ‘Prison and Probation
Expenditure’, by Mills, H., Silvestri, A. and Grimshaw, R. Figures for 2014 taken from ‘National Offender Management Service workforce statistics: December 2014’
(Figure3), and ‘Community Rehabilitation Company Workforce Information Summary Report: Quarter 3 2014/15’.
Table 49: Number of probation officers since 2002/03 – Scotland
2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
Frontline staff134-135
1,310
1,452
1,549
1,694
1,681
1,766
1,840
1,808
1,796
2,000
2,070
2,100
134 Figures until 2010 relate to Scottish Social Work Services criminal justice staff. Figures from 2011 relate to Fieldwork Services (Offenders) staff (Figure1 of SSSC,
2011 and 2012). Due to the change in collection date of local authority social work services data (the ownership and publishing of local authority social work
services staffing information has been transferred from the Scottish Government to the Scottish Social Services Council), figures from 2011 are not comparable with
the earlier figures. Even before 2011, Figures may not be strictly comparable between years due to recording changes.
135 Figures for 2002/03 to 2009/10 taken from ‘Staff of Scottish Local Authority Social Work Service 2010’ (Annex A, Figure1). Data after this taken from ‘Scottish
Social Services Sector: Report on Workforce Data’, 2011-2013.
Table 50: Number of probation officers since 2006/7 – Northern Ireland
Frontline staff136-137
2006 - 07
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
234
243
255
280
292
276
290
301
136 Includes probation management but not administrative staff.
137 Figures for 2006/07 to 2010/11 taken from Probation Board of Northern Ireland annual reports and accounts (2006/07 to 2010/11). Figures after this taken from
Freedom of Information responses from the Probation Board of Northern Ireland, FOI references: 023.36.12; 023.47.13; and 023.60.14.
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 69
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
10 Average caseload per probation agent
Table 51: Average caseload per probation agent – England and Wales
Caseload138-142
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
–
–
19.0
16.0
16.4
16.3
16.7
19.5
20.7
–
23.8
24.4
25.6
25.5
25.9
138 Calculated from total court order and pre- and post-release supervision cases supervised by the probation service at 31st December each year.
139 Reliable information on the probation caseload is only available from 2002 onwards.
140 Caseload for 2014 is calculated as the number of people under probation supervision on 30th September 2014 - data up to December was unavailable.
This figure counts an individual only once even if the person is under multiple types of supervision, so the caseload for 2014 is probably marginally higher
than this figure suggests.
141 Calculated using frontline staff figures shown above.
142 Number of cases supervised taken from Freedom of Information Response (2014) from the Ministry of Justice, FOI reference 94398.
For 2014 taken from Offender Management Statistics Quarterly.
Table 52: Average caseload per probation agent – Scotland
2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
143-144
Caseload
–
–
–
–
–
15.1
14.9
14.5
13.5
13.1
12.7
13.1
143 Total number of cases calculated by adding up case commencements of diversion from prosecution, bail supervision, community payback orders, community service
orders, probation orders, supervised attendance orders, drug treatment and testing orders, statutory throughcare in custody and the community, and voluntary
throughcare. It therefore excludes people whose supervision began in a previous year but is still in operation in a following year. The caseload figure is therefore
probably an underestimation.
144 Figures taken from Criminal justice social work statistics 2013-14, Excel tables, Figure 1.
Table 53: Average caseload per probation agent – Northern Ireland
Caseload145
2006 - 07
2007 - 08
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
16
16
16
15
15
16
15
15
145 Calculated from the number of offenders supervised at the end of the financial year, taken from PBNI Caseload Statistics 2013/14.
70 CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
Community sentences since 2000: How they work – and why they have not cut prisoner numbers
CENTRE FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES
At the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies we advance public
understanding of crime, criminal justice and social harm. We are
independent and non-partisan, though motivated by our values.
We stand with those most vulnerable to social harm. We believe that
the United Kingdom’s over reliance on policing, prosecution and
punishment is socially harmful, economically wasteful, and prevents
us from tackling the complex problems our society faces in a
sustainable, socially just manner.
With financial support from the
Criminal Justice Programme of
the European Union